Skip to main content

Full text of "Open access"

See other formats


The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series 

Information and the Modern Corporation, James Cortada 
Intellectual Property Strategy, John Palfrey 
Open Access, Peter Suber 



The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 

© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons licenses noted below. 
To view a copy of these licenses, visit Other than 
as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, 
transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without 
permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. 

kg) ® 

This book incorporates certain materials previously published under a CC-BY 
license and copyright in those underlying materials is owned by SPARC. 
Those materials remain under the CC-BY license. 


Effective June 15, 2013, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. 

MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business 
or sales promotional use. For information, please email special_sales@ or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 
Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. 

This book was set in Chaparral Pro by the MIT Press and 
was printed and bound in the United States of America. 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Suber, Peter. 

Open access / Peter Suber. 

p. cm. — (MIT Press essential knowledge) 
Includes bibliographical references and index. 
ISBN 978-0-262-51763-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 
1. Open access publishing. I. Title. 
Z286.063S83 2012 
070.57973— dc23 

10 98765432 


Series Foreword vii 
Preface ix 

1 What Is Open Access? 1 

2 Motivation 29 

3 Varieties 49 

4 Policies 77 

5 Scope 97 

6 Copyright 1 25 

7 Economics 133 

8 Casualties U9 

9 Future 163 

10 Self-Help 169 

Glossary 175 

Notes 177 

Additional Resources 219 

Index 223 


The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series presents short, 
accessible books on need-to-know subjects in a variety of 
fields. Written by leading thinkers, Essential Knowledge 
volumes deliver concise, expert overviews of topics rang- 
ing from the cultural and historical to the scientific and 
technical. In our information age, opinion, rationalization, 
and superficial descriptions are readily available. Much 
harder to come by are the principled understanding and 
foundational knowledge needed to inform our opinions 
and decisions. This series of beautifully produced, pocket- 
sized, soft-cover books provides in-depth, authoritative 
material on topics of current interest in a form accessible 
to non-experts. Instead of condensed versions of special- 
ist texts, these books synthesize anew important subjects 
for a knowledgeable audience. For those who seek to en- 
ter a subject via its fundamentals, Essential Knowledge 
volumes deliver the understanding and insight needed to 
navigate a complex world. 

Bruce Tidor 

Professor of Biological Engineering and Computer Science 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 


I have worked full-time for a decade to foster open access 
(OA) to science and scholarship. During that time I have 
often boiled down the big message into short talks and 
written long articles exploring small subtopics in detail. 
This book is an attempt at something in between: a suc- 
cinct introduction to the basics, long enough to cover the 
major topics in reasonable detail and short enough for 
busy people to read. 

I want busy people to read this book. OA benefits lit- 
erally everyone, for the same reasons that research itself 
benefits literally everyone. OA performs this service by 
facilitating research and making the results more widely 
available and useful. It benefits researchers as readers by 
helping them find and retrieve the information they need, 
and it benefits researchers as authors by helping them 
reach readers who can apply, cite, and build on their work. 
OA benefits nonresearchers by accelerating research and 
all the goods that depend on research, such as new medi- 
cines, useful technologies, solved problems, informed de- 
cisions, improved policies, and beautiful understanding. 

But OA only does this good work insofar as we actu- 
ally implement it, and the people in a position to imple- 
ment it tend to be busy. I'm thinking about researchers 

themselves and policymakers at stakeholder institutions 
such as universities, libraries, publishers, scholarly societ- 
ies, funding agencies, and governments. 

My honest belief from experience in the trenches is 
that the largest obstacle to OA is misunderstanding. The 
largest cause of misunderstanding is lack of familiarity, 
and the largest cause of unfamiliarity is preoccupation. 
Everyone is busy. There has been organized opposition 
from some publishers, but that has been a minor impedi- 
ment by comparison. 

The best remedy to misunderstanding is a clear state- 
ment of the basics for busy people. Only some fellow spe- 
cialists will wonder, with me, whether I've been too brief 
with some essential subtopics. But I knew that a larger 
book would miss the audience of busy people. Elaboration, 
documentation, research findings, case studies, and finer- 
grained recommendations are available in the voluminous 
literature online (most of it OA), including my own arti- 
cles (all of them OA). 1 

This book will itself be OA twelve months after it ap- 
pears in print. (I'm glad you asked.) If you can't wait, ev- 
erything I've said here I've said in some form or another 
in an OA article. 

I have freely incorporated some relevant earlier writ- 
ings into this book, improving on them when I could. Notes 
at the end of the book indicate which pieces I adapted or 

incorporated into which sections. I chose this method as a 
solution to a pair of dilemmas. I did not want to hide the 
fact that I was making use of my previous work, but nei- 
ther did I want to make any section into a stream of self- 
quotation and self-citation. I did not want to fail to benefit 
from my own previous work, but neither did I want to miss 
opportunities to clarify, update, or improve it. 

This little book doesn't say much about kindred top- 
ics such as open data, open educational resources, open 
government, free and open-source software, or open sci- 
ence (combining OA texts, open data, and open-source 
software, and providing these sorts of openness at every 
stage of a research project, not just at the end in reporting 
results). Some of the kindred forms of scholarly openness 
might soon be covered by other volumes in this series. 

I would not have been able to give my full time to OA 
for so many years without grants from the Open Society 
Foundations, Wellcome Trust, and Arcadia and without 
financial or institutional support from Earlham College, 
Public Knowledge, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic 
Resources Coalition (SPARC), the University of Maine, 
Data Conversion Laboratory, the Information Society Proj- 
ect at Yale Law School, the Berkman Center for Internet 
& Society at Harvard University, the Harvard Law School 
Library, and the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communi- 
cation. For their generous support for OA and my work 
I thank Fay Bound Alberti, Peter Baldwin, Jack Balkin, 

Douglas Bennett, Len Clark, Darius Cuplinskas, Robert 
Darnton, Urs Gasser, Melissa Hagemann, Rick Johnson, 
Heather Joseph, Robert Kiley, Sue Kriegsman, Harlan On- 
srud, John Palfrey, Lisbet Rausing, Stuart Shieber, David 
Skurnik, and Gigi Sohn. 

I dedicate this book to the thousands of people in every 
field and country who have dedicated themselves to the 
realization of OA. The ones I know personally are already 
too numerous to thank by name in the preface to a short 
book, and the fact that there are more than I could thank 
by name — even if I tried — fills me with admiration, grati- 
tude, and optimism. 

*Please also see Peter Suber's online page of updates and 
supplements to this book at 



Shifting from ink on paper to digital text suddenly allows 
us to make perfect copies of our work. Shifting from iso- 
lated computers to a globe-spanning network of connected 
computers suddenly allows us to share perfect copies of 
our work with a worldwide audience at essentially no cost. 
About thirty years ago this kind of free global sharing be- 
came something new under the sun. Before that, it would 
have sounded like a quixotic dream. 

Digital technologies have created more than one revo- 
lution. Let's call this one the access revolution. 

Why don't more authors take advantage of the access 
revolution to reach more readers? The answer is pretty 
clear. Authors who share their works in this way aren't 
selling them, and even authors with purposes higher than 
money depend on sales to make a living. Or at least they 
appreciate sales. 

Let's sharpen the question, then, by putting to one 
side authors who want to sell their work. We can even ac- 
knowledge that we're putting aside the vast majority of 

Imagine a tribe of authors who write serious and use- 
ful work, and who follow a centuries-old custom of giving it 
away without charge. I don't mean a group of rich authors 
who don't need money. I mean a group of authors defined 
by their topics, genres, purposes, incentives, and institu- 
tional circumstances, not by their wealth. In fact, very few 
are wealthy. For now, it doesn't matter who these authors 
are, how rare they are, what they write, or why they fol- 
low this peculiar custom. It's enough to know that their 
employers pay them salaries, freeing them to give away 
their work, that they write for impact rather than money, 
and that they score career points when they make the kind 
of impact they hoped to make. Suppose that selling their 
work would actually harm their interests by shrinking 
their audience, reducing their impact, and distorting their 
professional goals by steering them toward popular topics 
and away from the specialized questions on which they are 

If authors like that exist, at least they should take ad- 
vantage of the access revolution. The dream of global free 
access can be a reality for them, even if most other authors 
hope to earn royalties and feel obliged to sit out this par- 
ticular revolution. 


It's enough to know 
that their employers pay 
them salaries, freeing 
them to give away their 
work, that they write 
for impact rather than 
money, and that they 
score career points when 
they make the kind 
of impact they hoped 
to make. 

These lucky authors are scholars, and the works they 
customarily write and publish without payment are peer- 
reviewed articles in scholarly journals. Open access is the 
name of the revolutionary kind of access these authors, 
unencumbered by a motive of financial gain, are free to 
provide to their readers. 

Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free 
of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing 

We could call it "barrier-free" access, but that would 
emphasize the negative rather than the positive. In any 
case, we can be more specific about which access barriers 
OA removes. 

A price tag is a significant access barrier. Most works 
with price tags are individually affordable. But when a 
scholar needs to read or consult hundreds of works for 
one research project, or when a library must provide ac- 
cess for thousands of faculty and students working on 
tens of thousands of topics, and when the volume of new 
work grows explosively every year, price barriers become 
insurmountable. The resulting access gaps harm authors 
by limiting their audience and impact, harm readers by 
limiting what they can retrieve and read, and thereby 
harm research from both directions. OA removes price 


Copyright can also be a significant access barrier. If you 
have access to a work for reading but want to translate it 
into another language, distribute copies to colleagues, copy 
the text for mining with sophisticated software, or refor- 
mat it for reading with new technology, then you generally 
need the permission of the copyright holder. That makes 
sense when the author wants to sell the work and when 
the use you have in mind could undermine sales. But for re- 
search articles we're generally talking about authors from 
the special tribe who want to share their work as widely 
as possible. Even these authors, however, tend to trans- 
fer their copyrights to intermediaries — publishers — who 
want to sell their work. As a result, users may be hampered 
in their research by barriers erected to serve intermediar- 
ies rather than authors. In addition, replacing user free- 
dom with permission-seeking harms research authors by 
limiting the usefulness of their work, harms research read- 
ers by limiting the uses they may make of works even when 
they have access, and thereby harms research from both 
directions. OA removes these permission barriers. 

Removing price barriers means that readers are not 
limited by their own ability to pay, or by the budgets of the 
institutions where they may have library privileges. Re- 
moving permission barriers means that scholars are free 
to use or reuse literature for scholarly purposes. These 
purposes include reading and searching, but also redistrib- 
uting, translating, text mining, migrating to new media, 



When we need to, we can be more specific about 
access vehicles and access barriers. In the jargon, 
OA delivered by journals is called gold OA, and 
OA delivered by repositories is called green OA. 
Work that is not open access, or that is available 
only for a price, is called toll access (TA). Over the 
years I've asked publishers for a neutral, nonpe- 
jorative and nonhonorific term for toll-access 
publishers, and conventional publishers is the 
suggestion I hear most often. While every kind 
of OA removes price barriers, there are many dif- 
ferent permission barriers we could remove if we 
wanted to. If we remove price barriers alone, we 
provide gratis OA, and if we remove at least some 
permission barriers as well, we provide libre OA. 
(Also see section 3.1 on green/gold and section 
3.3 on gratis/libre.) 

long-term archiving, and innumerable new forms of re- 
search, analysis, and processing we haven't yet imagined. 
OA makes work more useful in both ways, by making it 
available to more people who can put it to use, and by free- 
ing those people to use and reuse it. 


OA was defined in three influential public state- 
ments: the Budapest Open Access Initiative (February 
2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing 
(June 2003), and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access 
to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (October 
2003). x I sometimes refer to their overlap or common 
ground as the BBB definition of OA. My definition here 
is the BBB definition reduced to its essential elements 
and refined with some post-BBB terminology (green, gold, 
gratis, libre) for speaking precisely about subspecies of OA. 
Here's how the Budapest statement defined OA: 

There are many degrees and kinds of wider and 
easier access to [research] literature. By "open access" 
to this literature, we mean its free availability on 
the public internet, permitting any users to read, 
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link 
to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for 
indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them 
for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, 
or technical barriers other than those inseparable 
from gaining access to the internet itself. The only 
constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the 
only role for copyright in this domain, should be to 
give authors control over the integrity of their work 
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. 


Here's how the Bethesda and Berlin statements put it: 
For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent 
in advance to let users "copy, use, distribute, transmit 
and display the work publicly and to make and distrib- 
ute derivative works, in any digital medium for any 
responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of 

Note that all three legs of the BBB definition go be- 
yond removing price barriers to removing permission 
barriers, or beyond gratis OA to libre OA. But at the same 
time, all three allow at least one limit on user freedom: an 
obligation to attribute the work to the author. The pur- 
pose of OA is to remove barriers to all legitimate schol- 
arly uses for scholarly literature, but there's no legitimate 
scholarly purpose in suppressing attribution to the texts 
we use. (That's why my shorthand definition says that OA 
literature is free of "most" rather than "all" copyright and 
licensing restrictions.) 

The basic idea of OA is simple: Make research litera- 
ture available online without price barriers and without 
most permission barriers. Even the implementation is 
simple enough that the volume of peer-reviewed OA lit- 
erature and the number of institutions providing it have 
grown at an increasing rate for more than a decade. If there 
are complexities, they lie in the transition from where we 
are now to a world in which OA is the default for new re- 
search. This is complicated because the major obstacles 


are not technical, legal, or economic, but cultural. (More in 
chapter 9 on the future.) 2 

In principle, any kind of digital content can be OA, 
since any digital content can be put online without price or 
permission barriers. Moreover, any kind of content can be 
digital: texts, data, images, audio, video, multimedia, and 
executable code. We can have OA music and movies, news 
and novels, sitcoms and software — and to different de- 
grees we already do. But the term "open access" was coined 
by researchers trying to remove access barriers to research. 
The next section explains why. 

1.1 What Makes OA Possible? 3 

OA is made possible by the internet and copyright-holder 
consent. But why would a copyright holder consent to OA? 

Two background facts suggest the answer. First, au- 
thors are the copyright holders for their work until or un- 
less they transfer rights to someone else, such as a publisher. 

Second, scholarly journals generally don't pay authors 
for their research articles, which frees this special tribe of 
authors to consent to OA without losing revenue. This fact 
distinguishes scholars decisively from musicians and mov- 
iemakers, and even from most other kinds of authors. This 
is why controversies about OA to music and movies don't 
carry over to OA for research articles. 


Both facts are critical, but the second is nearly un- 
known outside the academic world. It's not a new fact of 
academic life, arising from a recent economic downturn in 
the publishing industry. Nor is it a case of corporate exploi- 
tation of unworldly academics. Scholarly journals haven't 
paid authors for their articles since the first scholarly jour- 
nals, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of 
London and the Journal des scavans, launched in London 
and Paris in 1665. 4 

The academic custom to write research articles for im- 
pact rather than money may be a lucky accident that could 
have been otherwise. Or it may be a wise adaptation that 
would eventually evolve in any culture with a serious re- 
search subculture. (The optimist in me wants to believe 
the latter, but the evolution of copyright law taunts that 
optimism.) This peculiar custom does more than insulate 
cutting-edge research from the market and free scholars 
to consent to OA without losing revenue. It also supports 
academic freedom and the kinds of serious inquiry that 
advance knowledge. It frees researchers to challenge con- 
ventional wisdom and defend unpopular ideas, which are 
essential to academic freedom. At the same time it frees 
them to microspecialize and defend ideas of immediate 
interest to just a handful people in the world, which are 
essential to pushing the frontiers of knowledge. 

This custom doesn't guarantee that truth-seeking 
won't be derailed by profit-seeking, and it doesn't guarantee 


The academic custom to 
write research articles 
for impact rather than 
money may be a lucky 
accident that could 
have been otherwise. 
Or it may be a wise 
adaptation that would 
eventually evolve in any 
culture with a serious 
research subculture. 

that we'll eventually fill the smallest gaps in our collabora- 
tive understanding of the world. It doesn't even guarantee 
that scholars won't sometimes play for the crowd and de- 
tour into fad thinking. But it removes a major distraction 
by allowing them, if they wish, to focus on what is likely 
to be true rather than what is likely to sell. It's a payment 
structure we need for good research itself, not just for 
good access to research, and it's the key to the legal and 
economic lock that would otherwise shackle steps toward 

Creative people who live by royalties, such as novelists, 
musicians, and moviemakers, may consider this scholarly 
tradition a burden and sacrifice for scholars. We might 
even agree, provided we don't overlook a few facts. First, 
it's a sacrifice that scholars have been making for nearly 
350 years. OA to research articles doesn't depend on asking 
royalty-earning authors to give up their royalties. Second, 
academics have salaries from universities, freeing them to 
dive deeply into their research topics and publish special- 
ized articles without market appeal. Many musicians and 
moviemakers might envy that freedom to disregard sales 
and popular taste. Third, academics receive other, less tan- 
gible rewards from their institutions — like promotion and 
tenure — when their research is recognized by others, ac- 
cepted, cited, applied, and built upon. 

It's no accident that faculty who advance knowledge in 
their fields also advance their careers. Academics are pas- 


sionate about certain topics, ideas, questions, inquiries, or 
disciplines. They feel lucky to have jobs in which they may 
pursue these passions and even luckier to be rewarded for 
pursuing them. Some focus single-mindedly on carrying 
an honest pebble to the pile of knowledge (as John Lange 
put it), having an impact on their field, or scooping oth- 
ers working on the same questions. Others focus strategi- 
cally on building the case for promotion and tenure. But 
the two paths converge, which is not a fortuitous fact of 
nature but an engineered fact of life in the academy. As in- 
centives for productivity, these intangible career benefits 
may be stronger for the average researcher than royalties 
are for the average novelist or musician. (In both domains, 
bountiful royalties for superstars tell us nothing about 
effective payment models for the long tail of less stellar 

There's no sense in which research would be more free, 
efficient, or effective if academics took a more "business- 
like" position, behaved more like musicians and movie- 
makers, abandoned their insulation from the market, and 
tied their income to the popularity of their ideas. Nonaca- 
demics who urge academics to come to their senses and 
demand royalties even for journal articles may be more 
naive about nonprofit research than academics are about 
for-profit business. 5 

We can take this a step further. Scholars can afford to 
ignore sales because they have salaries and research grants 


to take the place of royalties. But why do universities pay 
salaries and why do funding agencies award grants? They 
do it to advance research and the range of public interests 
served by research. They don't do it to earn profits from 
the results. They are all nonprofit. They certainly don't do 
it to make scholarly writings into gifts to enrich publishers, 
especially when conventional publishers erect access bar- 
riers at the expense of research. Universities and funding 
agencies pay researchers to make their research into gifts 
to the public in the widest sense. 

Public and private funding agencies are essentially 
public and private charities, funding research they regard 
as useful or beneficial. Universities have a public purpose 
as well, even when they are private institutions. We sup- 
port the public institutions with public funds, and we 
support the private ones with tax exemptions for their 
property and tax deductions for their donors. 

We'd have less knowledge, less academic freedom, 
and less OA if researchers worked for royalties and made 
their research articles into commodities rather than gifts. 
It should be no surprise, then, that more and more fund- 
ing agencies and universities are adopting strong OA poli- 
cies. Their mission to advance research leads them directly 
to logic of OA: With a few exceptions, such as classified 
research, research that is worth funding or facilitating is 
worth sharing with everyone who can make use of it. (See 
chapter 4 on OA policies.) 


Newcomers to OA often assume that OA helps readers 
and hurts authors, and that the reader side of the scholarly 
soul must beg the author side to make the necessary sac- 
rifice. But OA benefits authors as well as readers. Authors 
want access to readers at least as much as readers want 
access to authors. All authors want to cultivate a larger au- 
dience and greater impact. Authors who work for royalties 
have reason to compromise and settle for the smaller audi- 
ence of paying customers. But authors who aren't paid for 
their writing have no reason to compromise. 

It takes nothing away from a disinterested desire to 
advance knowledge to recognize that scholarly publication 
is accompanied by a strong interest in impact and career 
building. The result is a mix of interested and disinterested 
motives. The reasons to make work OA are essentially the 
same as the reasons to publish. Authors who make their 
work OA are always serving others but not always acting 
from altruism. In fact, the idea that OA depends on author 
altruism slows down OA progress by hiding the role of au- 
thor self-interest. 

Another aspect of author self-interest emerges from 
the well-documented phenomenon that OA articles are 
cited more often than non-OA articles, even when they are 
published in the same issue of the same journal. There's 
growing evidence that OA articles are downloaded more 
often as well, and that journals converting to OA see a rise 
in their submissions and citation impact. 6 


There are many hypotheses to explain the correlation 
between OA and increased citations, but it's likely that 
ongoing studies will show that much of the correlation is 
simply due to the larger audience and heightened visibility 
provided by OA itself. When you enlarge the audience for 
an article, you also enlarge the subset of the audience that 
will later cite it, including professionals in the same field 
at institutions unable to afford subscription access. OA 
enlarges the potential audience, including the potential 
professional audience, far beyond that for even the most 
prestigious and popular subscription journals. 

In any case, these studies bring a welcome note of au- 
thor self-interest to the case for OA. OA is not a sacrifice 
for authors who write for impact rather than money. It 
increases a work's visibility, retrievability, audience, us- 
age, and citations, which all convert to career building. For 
publishing scholars, it would be a bargain even if it were 
costly, difficult, and time-consuming. But as we'll see, it's 
not costly, not difficult, and not time-consuming. 

My colleague Stevan Harnad frequently compares re- 
search articles to advertisements. They advertise the au- 
thor's research. Try telling advertisers that they're making 
a needless sacrifice by allowing people to read their ads 
without having to pay for the privilege. Advertisers give 
away their ads and even pay to place them where they 
might be seen. They do this to benefit themselves, and 


scholars have the same interest in sharing their message 
as widely as possible. 7 

Because any content can be digital, and any digital 
content can be OA, OA needn't be limited to royalty-free 
literature like research articles. Research articles are just 
ripe examples of low-hanging fruit. OA could extend to 
royalty-producing work like monographs, textbooks, nov- 
els, news, music, and movies. But as soon as we cross the 
line into OA for royalty-producing work, authors will ei- 
ther lose revenue or fear that they will lose revenue. Either 
way, they'll be harder to persuade. But instead of conclud- 
ing that royalty-producing work is off limits to OA, we 
should merely conclude that it's higher-hanging fruit. In 
many cases we can still persuade royalty-earning authors 
to consent to OA. (See section 5.3 on OA for books.) 

Authors of scholarly research articles aren't the only 
players who work without pay in the production of re- 
search literature. In general, scholarly journals don't pay 
editors or referees either. In general, editors and referees 
are paid salaries by universities to free them, like authors, 
to donate their time and labor to ensure the quality of new 
work appearing in scholarly journals. An important conse- 
quence follows. All the key players in peer review can con- 
sent to OA without losing revenue. OA needn't dispense 
with peer review or favor unrefereed manuscripts over 
refereed articles. We can aim for the prize of OA to peer- 
reviewed scholarship. (See section 5.1 on peer review.) 


Of course, conventional publishers are not as free as au- 
thors, editors, and referees to forgo revenue. This is a central 
fact in the transition to OA, and it explains why the interests 
of scholars and conventional publishers diverge more in the 
digital age than they diverged earlier. But not all publishers 
are conventional, and not all conventional publishers will 
carry print-era business models into the digital age. 

Academic publishers are not monolithic. Some new 
ones were born OA and some older ones have completely 
converted to OA. Many provide OA to some of their work 
but not all of it. Some are experimenting with OA, and 
some are watching the experiments of others. Most allow 
green OA (through repositories) and a growing number of- 
fer at least some kind of gold OA (through journals). Some 
are supportive, some undecided, some opposed. Among 
the opposed, some have merely decided not to provide OA 
themselves, while others lobby actively against policies to 
encourage or require OA. Some oppose gold but not green 
OA, while others oppose green but not gold OA. 

OA gains nothing and loses potential allies by blurring 
these distinctions. This variety reminds us (to paraphrase 
Tim O'Reilly) that OA doesn't threaten publishing; it only 
threatens existing publishers who do not adapt. 8 

A growing number of journal publishers have chosen 
business models allowing them to dispense with subscrip- 
tion revenue and offer OA. They have expenses but they 
also have revenue to cover their expenses. In fact, some 


OA publishers are for-profit and profitable. (See chapter 7 
on economics.) 

Moreover, peer review is done by dedicated volunteers 
who don't care how a journal pays its bills, or even whether 
the journal is in the red or the black. If all peer-reviewed 
journals converted to OA overnight, the authors, editors, 
and referees would have the same incentives to participate 
in peer review that they had the day before. They needn't 
stop offering their services, needn't lower their standards, 
and needn't make sacrifices they weren't already mak- 
ing. They volunteer their time not because of a journal's 
choice of business model but because of its contribution 
to research. They could carry on with solvent or insolvent 
subscription publishers, with solvent or insolvent OA pub- 
lishers, or even without publishers. 

The Budapest Open Access Initiative said in February 
2002: "An old tradition and a new technology have con- 
verged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The 
old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars 
to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals 

without payment The new technology is the internet." 9 

To see what this willingness looks like without the medium 
to give it effect, look at scholarship in the age of print. Au- 
thor gifts turned into publisher commodities, and access 
gaps for readers were harmfully large and widespread. (Ac- 
cess gaps are still harmfully large and widespread, but only 
because OA is not yet the default for new research.) To see 


what the medium looks like without the willingness, look 
at music and movies in the age of the internet. The need 
for royalties keeps creators from reaching everyone who 
would enjoy their work. 

A beautiful opportunity exists where the willingness 
and the medium overlap. A scholarly custom that evolved 
in the seventeenth century frees scholars to take advan- 
tage of the access revolution in the twentieth and twenty- 
first. Because scholars are nearly unique in following this 
custom, they are nearly unique in their freedom to take 
advantage of this revolution without financial risk. In this 
sense, the planets have aligned for scholars. Most other 
authors are constrained to fear rather than seize the op- 
portunities created by the internet. 

1.2 What OA Is Not 10 

We can dispel a cloud of objections and misunderstandings 
simply by pointing out a few things that OA is not. (Many 
of these points will be elaborated in later chapters.) 

1. OA isn't an attempt to bypass peer review. OA is 
compatible with every kind of peer review, from the most 
conservative to the most innovative, and all the major 
public statements on OA insist on its importance. Because 
scholarly journals generally don't pay peer-reviewing edi- 
tors and referees, just as they don't pay authors, all the par- 
ticipants in peer review can consent to OA without losing 


revenue. While OA to unrefereed preprints is useful and 
widespread, the OA movement isn't limited to unrefereed 
preprints and, if anything, focuses on OA to peer-reviewed 
articles. (More in section 5.1 on peer review.) 

2. OA isn't an attempt to reform, violate, or abolish 
copyright. It's compatible with copyright law as it is. OA 
would benefit from the right kinds of copyright reforms, 
and many dedicated people are working on them. But it 
needn't wait for reforms and hasn't waited. OA literature 
avoids copyright problems in exactly the same way that 
conventional toll-access literature does. For older works, it 
takes advantage of the public domain, and for newer works, 
it rests on copyright-holder consent. (More in chapter 4 on 
policies and chapter 6 on copyright.) 

3. OA isn't an attempt to deprive royalty-earning au- 
thors of income. The OA movement focuses on research 
articles precisely because they don't pay royalties. In any 
case, inside and outside that focus, OA for copyrighted 
work depends on copyright-holder consent. Hence, roy- 
alty-earning authors have nothing to fear but persuasion 
that the benefits of OA might outweigh the risks to royal- 
ties. (More in section 5.3 on OA for books.) 

4. OA isn't an attempt to deny the reality of costs. No 
serious OA advocate has ever argued that OA literature 
is costless to produce, although many argue that it is less 
expensive to produce than conventionally published lit- 
erature, even less expensive than born-digital toll-access 



We could talk about vigilante OA, infringing OA, 
piratical OA, or OA without consent. That sort of 
OA could violate copyrights and deprive royalty- 
earning authors of royalties against their will. 
But we could also talk about vigilante publish- 
ing, infringing publishing, piratical publishing, 
or publishing without consent. Both happen. 
However, we generally reserve the term "publish- 
ing" for lawful publishing, and tack on special 
adjectives to describe unlawful variations on 
the theme. Likewise, I'll reserve the term "open 
access" for lawful OA that carries the consent of 
the relevant rightsholder. 

literature. The question is not whether research literature 
can be made costless, but whether there are better ways 
to pay the bills than charging readers and creating access 
barriers. (More in chapter 7 on economics.) 

5. OA isn't an attempt to reduce authors' rights over 
their work. On the contrary, OA depends on author de- 
cisions and requires authors to exercise more rights or 
control over their work than they are allowed to exercise 


under traditional publishing contracts. One OA strategy is 
for authors to retain some of the rights they formerly gave 
publishers, including the right to authorize OA. Another 
OA strategy is for publishers to permit more uses than 
they formerly permitted, including permission for authors 
to make OA copies of their work. By contrast, traditional 
journal-publishing contracts demand that authors trans- 
fer all rights to publishers, and author rights or control 
cannot sink lower than that. (See chapters 4 on policies 
and 6 on copyright.) 

6. OA isn't an attempt to reduce academic freedom. 
Academic authors remain free to submit their work to 
the journals or publishers of their choice. Policies requir- 
ing OA do so conditionally, for example, for researchers 
who choose to apply for a certain kind of grant. In addi- 
tion, these policies generally build in exceptions, waiver 
options, or both. Since 2008 most university OA policies 
have been adopted by faculty deeply concerned to pre- 
serve and even enhance their prerogatives. (See chapter 
4 on OA policies.) 

7. OA isn't an attempt to relax rules against plagia- 
rism. All the public definitions of OA support author attri- 
bution, even construed as a "restriction" on users. All the 
major open licenses require author attribution. Moreover, 
plagiarism is typically punished by the plagiarist's institu- 
tion rather than by courts, that is, by social norms rather 
than by law. Hence, even when attribution is not legally 


required, plagiarism is still a punishable offense and no 
OA policy anywhere interferes with those punishments. In 
any case, if making literature digital and online makes pla- 
giarism easier to commit, then OA makes plagiarism easier 
to detect. Not all plagiarists are smart, but the smart ones 
will not steal from OA sources indexed in every search en- 
gine. In this sense, OA deters plagiarism. 11 

8. OA isn't an attempt to punish or undermine con- 
ventional publishers. OA is an attempt to advance the in- 
terests of research, researchers, and research institutions. 
The goal is constructive, not destructive. If OA does even- 
tually harm toll-access publishers, it will be in the way 
that personal computers harmed typewriter manufactur- 
ers. The harm was not the goal, but a side effect of devel- 
oping something better. Moreover, OA doesn't challenge 
publishers or publishing per se, just one business model 
for publishing, and it's far easier for conventional pub- 
lishers to adapt to OA than for typewriter manufacturers 
to adapt to computers. In fact, most toll-access publish- 
ers are already adapting, by allowing author-initiated OA, 
providing some OA themselves, or experimenting with 
OA. (See section 3.1 on green OA and chapter 8 on casu- 
alties.) 12 

9. OA doesn't require boycotting any kind of literature 
or publisher. It doesn't require boycotting toll-access re- 
search any more than free online journalism requires boy- 
cotting priced online journalism. OA doesn't require us to 


strike toll-access literature from our personal reading lists, 
course syllabi, or libraries. Some scholars who support OA 
decide to submit new work only to OA journals, or to do- 
nate their time as editors or referees only to OA journals, 
in effect boycotting toll-access journals as authors, editors, 
and referees. But this choice is not forced by the definition 
of OA, by a commitment to OA, or by any OA policy, and 
most scholars who support OA continue to work with toll- 
access journals. In any case, even those scholars who do 
boycott toll-access journals as authors, editors, or referees 
don't boycott them as readers. (Here we needn't get into 
the complexity that some toll-access journals effectively 
create involuntary reader boycotts by pricing their jour- 
nals out of reach of readers who want access.) 

10. OA isn't primarily about bringing access to lay 
readers. If anything, the OA movement focuses on bring- 
ing access to professional researchers whose careers de- 
pend on access. But there's no need to decide which users 
are primary and which are secondary. The publishing lobby 
sometimes argues that the primary beneficiaries of OA are 
lay readers, perhaps to avoid acknowledging how many 
professional researchers lack access, or perhaps to set up 
the patronizing counter-argument that lay people don't 
care to read research literature and wouldn't understand 
it if they tried. OA is about bringing access to everyone 
with an internet connection who wants access, regardless 
of their professions or purposes. There's no doubt that if 


we put "professional researchers" and "everyone else" into 
separate categories, a higher percentage of researchers will 
want access to research literature, even after taking into 
account that many already have paid access through their 
institutions. But it's far from clear why that would mat- 
ter, especially when providing OA to all internet users is 
cheaper and simpler than providing OA to just a subset of 
worthy internet users. 

If party-goers in New York and New Jersey can both 
enjoy the Fourth of July fireworks in New York Harbor, 
then the sponsors needn't decide that one group is pri- 
mary, even if a simple study could show which group is 
more numerous. If this analogy breaks down, it's because 
New Jersey residents who can't see the fireworks gain 
nothing from New Yorkers who can. But research does of- 
fer this double or indirect benefit. When OA research di- 
rectly benefits many lay readers, so much the better. But 
when it doesn't, it still benefits everyone indirectly by 
benefiting researchers directly. (Also see section 5.5.1 on 
access for lay readers.) 

11. Finally, OA isn't universal access. Even when we 
succeed at removing price and permission barriers, four 
other kinds of access barrier might remain in place: 

• Filtering and censorship barriers Many schools, 
employers, ISPs, and governments want to limit what 
users can see. 


• Language barriers Most online literature is in Eng- 
lish, or another single language, and machine transla- 
tion is still very weak. 

• Handicap access barriers Most web sites are not yet 
as accessible to handicapped users as they should be. 

• Connectivity barriers The digital divide keeps bil- 
lions of people offline, including millions of scholars, 
and impedes millions of others with slow, flaky, or 
low-bandwidth internet connections. 

Most us want to remove all four of these barriers. But 
there's no reason to save the term open access until we suc- 
ceed. In the long climb to universal access, removing price 
and permission barriers is a significant plateau worth rec- 
ognizing with a special name. 



2.1 OA as Solving Problems 1 

There are lamentably many problems for which OA is part 
of the solution. Here are fifteen ways in which the current 
system of disseminating peer-reviewed research is deeply 
dysfunctional for researchers and their institutions, even 
if highly profitable for the largest conventional publishers. 
I've limited the list to those for which OA offers some hope 
of relief. 

1. We are in the midst of a pricing crisis for scholarly 
journals. For four decades, subscription prices have risen 
significantly faster than inflation and significantly faster 
than library budgets. Subscription prices have risen about 
twice as fast as the price of healthcare, for most people the 
very index of skyrocketing, unsustainable prices. We're 
long past the era of damage control and into the era of 
damage. 2 

2. When most peer-reviewed research journals are toll 
access, a pricing crisis entails an access crisis. Before the 
rise of OA, all peer-reviewed journals were toll access, and 
even today about three-quarters of peer-reviewed journals 
are toll access. 3 When subscribers respond to skyrocketing 
prices by canceling subscriptions, access decreases. Can- 
cellations mitigate one problem and aggravate another. A 
study by the Research Information Network in late 2009 
found that 40 percent of surveyed researchers had trouble 
accessing journal literature at least once a week, and two- 
thirds at least once a month. About 60 percent said that 
access limitations hindered their research, and 18 percent 
said the hindrance was significant. 4 

3. Even the wealthiest academic libraries in the world 
suffer serious access gaps. When the Harvard Faculty of 
Arts and Sciences voted unanimously for a strong OA pol- 
icy in February 2008, Professor Stuart Shieber explained 
that cumulative price increases had forced the Harvard 
library to undertake "serious cancellation efforts" for bud- 
getary reasons. 5 

Access gaps are worse at other affluent institutions, 
and worse still in the developing world. In 2008, Harvard 
subscribed to 98,900 serials and Yale to 73,900. The best- 
funded research library in India, at the Indian Institute of 
Science, subscribed to 10,600. Several sub-Saharan Afri- 
can university libraries subscribed to zero, offering their 


Access gaps are worse at 
other affluent institu- 
tions, and worse still 
in the developing world. 
In 2008, Harvard sub- 
scribed to 98,900 serials 
and Yale to 73,900. 
The best- funded research 
library in India, at the 
Indian Institute of 
Science, subscribed to 

patrons access to no conventional journals except those 
donated by publishers. 6 

4. The largest publishers minimize cancellations by 
bundling hundreds or thousands of high-demand and 
low-demand journals into "big deals," which reduce the 
bargaining power of libraries and the cost-cutting options 
available to them. On the plus side, big deals give universi- 
ties access to more titles than they had before and reduce 
the average cost per title. But when libraries try to cancel 
individual titles that are low in quality or low in local usage, 
publishers raise the price on the remaining titles. Bundling 
gives libraries little room to save money with carefully tar- 
geted cancellations, and after a point forces them to cancel 
all or none. 

By design, big deals are too big to cancel without pain, 
giving publishers leverage to raise prices out of proportion 
to journal costs, size, usage, impact, and quality. Without 
bundling, libraries would have responded to the pricing 
crisis with a devastating number of cancellations. With 
bundling, publishers protect even second-rate journals 
from cancellation, protect their own profits, and shift the 
devastation to library budgets. 7 

Whilethe damagegrows, thelargest journal publishers 
earn higher profit margins than the largest oil companies. 
In 2010, Elsevier's journal division had a profit margin of 
35.7 percent while ExxonMobil had only 28.1 percent. 8 


By soaking up library budgets, big deals harm journals 
from small nonprofit publishers excluded from the bun- 
dles. This exacerbates the problem for researchers because 
journals from these smaller publishers tend to be higher in 
quality and impact than the journals protected by the big 
deals (more in #11 below). 

To top it off, most big deals include confidentiality 
clauses preventing universities from disclosing the prices 
they pay. The effect is to reduce bargaining and price com- 
petition even further. In 2009, three academics launched 
the Big Deal Contract Project to use state open-record laws 
to force disclosure of big-deal contracts with public uni- 
versities. Elsevier went to court to block the release of its 
contract with Washington State University and lost. 9 

5. During the decades in which journal prices have 
been rising faster than inflation and faster than library 
budgets, libraries have cut into their book budgets to pay 
for journals. According to James McPherson, "In 1986 
[academic] libraries spent 44 percent of their budgets on 
books and 56 percent on journals; by 1997 the imbalance 
had grown to 28 percent for books and 72 percent for jour- 
nals." Because academic libraries now buy fewer books, 
academic book publishers now accept fewer manuscripts. 
One result is that the journal crisis, concentrated in the 
sciences, has precipitated a monograph crisis, concen- 
trated in the humanities. 10 


6. New restrictions on electronic journals add a per- 
missions crisis on top of the pricing crisis. For publishers 
of online toll-access journals, there are business reasons to 
limit the freedom of users to copy and redistribute texts, 
even if that leaves users with fewer rights than they had 
with print journals. But these business reasons create per- 
nicious consequences for libraries and their patrons. 

Among the results: When libraries pay for subscrip- 
tions to digital journals, they don't buy or own their own 
digital copies but merely rent or license them for a period 
of time. If they cancel a subscription, they could lose ac- 
cess to past issues. They could violate the publishers' 
copyrights if they make or hold copies for long-term pres- 
ervation without special permission or payment, shifting 
the task of preservation more and more to publishers who 
are not preservation experts and who tend to make preser- 
vation decisions with only future market potential in mind. 
Libraries can't migrate older content, such as journal back- 
files, to new media and formats to keep them readable as 
technology changes, at least not without special permis- 
sion or risk of liability. Some publishers don't allow librar- 
ies to share digital texts by interlibrary loan and instead 
require them to make printouts, scan the printouts, and 
lend the scans. Libraries must negotiate for prices and 
licensing terms, often under nondisclosure agreements, 
and retain and consult complex licensing agreements that 
differ from publisher to publisher and year to year. They 


must police or negotiate access for walk-in patrons, online 
users off campus, and visiting faculty. They must limit ac- 
cess and usage by password, internet-protocol (IP) address, 
usage hours, institutional affiliation, physical location, 
and caps on simultaneous users. They must implement au- 
thentication systems and administer proxy servers. They 
must make fair-use judgment calls, erring on the side of 
seeking permission or forgoing use. They must explain to 
patrons that cookies and registration make anonymous in- 
quiry impossible and that some uses allowed by law are not 
allowed by the technology. 

I make this list library-centric rather than user-centric 
because the pricing crisis has nearly killed off individual 
subscriptions. Most subscribers to toll-access journals are 
libraries, and most authorized readers of toll-access jour- 
nals are library patrons. 11 

In short, conventional publishers regard easy online 
sharing as a problem while researchers and libraries regard 
it as a solution. The internet is widening the gap between 
the interests of conventional publishers and the interests 
of researchers and research institutions. 

Conventional publishers are adapting to the digital age 
in some respects. They're migrating most print journals to 
digital formats 12 and even dropping their print editions. 
They're incorporating hyperlinks, search engines, and 
alert services. A growing number are digitizing their back- 
files and integrating texts with data. But the revolutionary 


The deeper problem is 
that we donate time, 
labor, and public money 
to create new knowledge 
and then hand control 
over the results to 
businesses that believe, 
correctly or incorrectly, 
that their revenue and 
survival depend on 
limiting access to that 

power to share content without price or permission barri- 
ers, to solve the pricing and permission crises at a stroke 
and liberate research for the benefit of all, is the one in- 
novation they fear most. 

7. Conventional publishers acquire their key assets 
from academics without charge. Authors donate the texts 
of new articles and the rights to publish them. Editors and 
referees donate the peer-review judgments to improve and 
validate their quality 13 But then conventional publishers 
charge for access to the resulting articles, with no excep- 
tion for authors, editors, referees, or their institutions. 
Publishers argue that they add value to the submitted 
manuscripts, which is true. But other players in the game, 
such as authors, editors, and referees, add far more value 
than publishers. For funded research, the funding agency 
is another critical player. It too must pay for access to the 
resulting articles even when the cost of a research project 
is hundreds of thousands of times greater than the cost 
of publication. Among these five value-adders — authors, 
editors, referees, funders, and publishers — publishers add 
the least value and generally demand the ownership rights. 

8. Conventional publishers use a business model that 
depends on access barriers and creates artificial scarcity. 
All publishers (conventional and OA) need revenue to 
cover their costs, but OA publishers use business models 
that dispense with access barriers and avoid artificial scar- 
city. Toll-access publishers contend that the OA business 


models are inadequate. We can debate that, for example, in 
light of the evidence that more than 7,500 peer-reviewed 
OA journals are finding ways to pay their bills, the fact 
that a growing number of for-profit OA publishers are al- 
ready showing profits, and the fact that most of the money 
needed to support OA journals is currently tied up sup- 
porting toll-access journals. (See chapter 7 on economics.) 

But in the end it doesn't matter whether toll-access 
publishers are right or wrong to believe that their revenue 
requires access barriers. The deeper problem is that we do- 
nate time, labor, and public money to create new knowl- 
edge and then hand control over the results to businesses 
that believe, correctly or incorrectly, that their revenue 
and survival depend on limiting access to that knowledge. 
If toll-access publishers are right that they must erect ac- 
cess barriers to reimburse themselves, then the problem is 
that we allow them to be the only outlets for most peer-re- 
viewed research. If they're wrong about the need for access 
barriers, then the problem is that we tolerate their access 
barriers, even for publicly funded research and gifts from 
authors who write for impact and not for money. 

9. Conventional publishers often criticize OA ini- 
tiatives for "interfering with the market," but scholarly 
publishing is permeated by state action, public subsidies, 
gift culture, and anticompetitive practices. 14 All scholarly 
journals (toll access and OA) benefit from public subsidies. 
Most scientific research is funded by public agencies us- 


ing public money, conducted and written up by researchers 
working at public institutions and paid with public money, 
and then peer-reviewed by faculty at public institutions 
and paid with public money. Even when researchers and 
peer reviewers work at private universities, their institu- 
tions are subsidized by publicly funded tax exemptions 
and tax-deductible donations. Most toll-access journal 
subscriptions are purchased by public institutions and 
paid with taxpayer money. 

Last and not least, publishers exercise their control 
over research articles through copyright, a temporary gov- 
ernment-created monopoly. 

10. Every scholarly journal is a natural mini-monop- 
oly in the sense that no other journal publishes the same 
articles. There's nothing improper about this natural 
mini-monopoly It's a side-effect of the desirable fact that 
journals don't duplicate one another. But it means that 
toll-access journals compete for authors much more than 
they compete for subscribers. If you need an article pub- 
lished in a certain journal, then you need access to that 
journal. This is one reason why free and expensive journals 
can coexist in the same field, even at the same level of qual- 
ity. The free journals don't drive the expensive journals out 
of business or even drive down their prices. By weakening 
the competition for buyers, however, this natural monop- 
oly weakens the market feedback that would otherwise 
punish declining quality, declining usage, and rising prices. 


11. Laid on top of this natural monopoly are several 
layers of artificial monopoly. One kind of evidence is that 
large commercial publishers charge higher prices and raise 
their prices faster than small, nonprofit publishers. Yet, 
the scholarly consensus is that quality, impact, and pres- 
tige are generally higher at the nonprofit society journals. 15 

12. Large conventional publishers spend some of the 
money they extract from libraries on marketing and "con- 
tent protection" measures that benefit publishers far more 
than users. Indeed, the content protection measures don't 
benefit users at all and make the texts less useful. 16 

13. Conventional for-profit journals can increase 
their profit margins by decreasing their rejection rates. 
Reducing the rejection rate reduces the number of articles 
a journal must peer review for each article it publishes. 17 

14. Most faculty and researchers are aware of access 
gaps in their libraries but generally unaware of their causes 
and unaware that the problems are systemic and worsen- 
ing. (A common response: My research is very specialized, 
so naturally my library won't have everything I need.) 
On the other hand, librarians are acutely aware of library 
budget crises, high journal prices, hyperinflationary price 
increases, bundling constraints, publisher profit margins, 
and the disconnect between prices paid and journal costs, 
size, usage, impact, and quality. Researcher oblivion to the 
problems facing libraries adds several new problems to 
the mix. It means that the players who are most aware of 


quality are generally unaware of prices, which Jan Velterop 
once called the "cat food" model of purchasing. It creates 
a classic moral hazard in which researchers are shielded 
from the costs of their preferences and have little incen- 
tive to adjust their preferences accordingly. It subtracts 
one more market signal that might otherwise check high 
prices and declining quality. And while researchers support 
OA roughly to the extent that they know about it, and have 
their own reasons to work for it, their general unaware- 
ness of the crisis for libraries adds one more difficulty to 
the job of recruiting busy and preoccupied researchers to 
the cause of fixing this broken system. 18 

The fact that there are enough problems to motivate 
different stakeholders is a kind of good news. If the sys- 
tem were broken for buyers (librarians) but not for users 
(researchers), or vice versa, that would delay any fix even 
longer. Or it would create a pernicious trade-off in which 
any fix would help one group at the expense of the other. 
But the system is broken for both buyers and users, which 
makes them natural allies. 19 

15. Finally, even in the absence of perverse journal 
pricing practices, the subscription or toll-access business 
model would not scale with the growth of research or the 
growth of published knowledge. If prices were low today 
and guaranteed to remain low forever, the total price for the 
total literature would still be heading toward exponential 
explosion. This is easiest to see at the mythical University 


of Croesus, which can afford 100 percent of the literature 
today. In that respect, Croesus is far better off than any 
university in the real world. Let's suppose that journal 
prices and the Croesus library budget increase at the same 
rate forever. For simplicity, let's assume that rate is zero. 
They never grow at all, not even at the rate of inflation. 
Let's assume that the growth of knowledge means that 
the journal literature grows by 5 percent a year, a common 
industry estimate. Croesus can afford full coverage today, 
but in twenty years it would have to spend 2.7 times more 
than it spends today for full coverage, in sixty years 18.7 
times more, and in a hundred years 131.5 times more. But 
since Croesus can't spend more than it has, in twenty years 
the coverage it could afford would drop from 100 percent 
to 37.7 percent, in sixty years to 5.4 percent, and in a hun- 
dred years to less than 1 percent. 

We need a system of research dissemination that 
scales with the growth of research volume. The subscrip- 
tion or toll-access system scales negatively by shrinking 
the accessible percentage of research as research itself con- 
tinues to grow. 20 

Money would solve the access crisis if we had enough 
of it, and if the amount at our disposal grew in proportion 
to the growing volume and growing prices of the literature. 
But we don't have nearly enough money, and the money 
we do have doesn't grow nearly fast enough to keep pace 
with the volume or prices of the literature. 


Toll-access publishers don't benefit from access gaps 
and have their own reasons to want to close them. But they 
prefer the unscalable money solution, even if university 
budgets and national treasuries must be squeezed by law 
to find the funds. Crispin Davis, then-CEO of Elsevier, once 
argued that "the government needs to lay down guidelines 
on the proportion of university funds that should be set 
aside for the acquisition of books and journals, or even in- 
crease funding to ensure that universities can buy all the 
material they need." 21 

At some point we should trust the math more than 
special-interest lobbies. Among the many who have done 
the math, the University of California concluded that the 
subscription model for research journals is "incontrovert- 
ibly unsustainable." 22 

2.2 OA as Seizing Opportunities 23 

Even if we had no pressing problems to solve, we'd want 
to take full advantage of the unprecedented power of 
digital technology to share knowledge and accelerate re- 
search. But we have both problems and opportunities, and 
we should acknowledge that. Too much of the OA discus- 
sion is grim, utilitarian, and problem-oriented. We should 
complement it with discussion that is joyful, curious, and 
opportunity-oriented. Serious problems don't rule out 


beautiful opportunities, and one of the most beautiful op- 
portunities facing OA is that certain strategic actions will 
solve serious problems and seize beautiful opportunities 
at the same time. 

Here's a brace of those beautiful opportunities. The 
internet emerged just as journal subscription prices were 
reaching unbearable levels. The internet widens distribu- 
tion and reduces costs at the same time. Digital computers 
connected to a global network let us make perfect copies 
of arbitrary files and distribute them to a worldwide audi- 
ence at zero marginal cost. For 350 years, scholars have 
willingly, even eagerly, published journal articles without 
payment, freeing them to consent to OA without los- 
ing revenue. Unrestricted access to digital files supports 
forms of discovery and processing impossible for paper 
texts and for inaccessible or use-restricted digital texts. 
OA is already lawful and doesn't require copyright reform. 
Now that the internet is at our fingertips, OA is within 
the reach of researchers and research institutions acting 
alone and needn't wait for publishers, legislation, or mar- 
kets. Authors, editors, and referees — the whole team that 
produces peer-reviewed research articles — can provide 
OA to peer-reviewed research literature and, if necessary, 
cut recalcitrant publishers out of the loop. For researchers 
acting on their own, the goal of complete OA is even easier 
to attain than the goal of affordable journals. 


A less obvious but more 
fundamental opportu- 
nity is that knowledge is 
nonrivalrous (to use a 
term from the econom- 
ics of property). We 
can share it without 
dividing it and consume it 
without diminishing 
it. My possession and 
use of some knowledge 
doesn't exclude your 
possession and use of the 
same knowledge. 

A less obvious but more fundamental opportunity is 
that knowledge is nonrivalrous (to use a term from the eco- 
nomics of property). We can share it without dividing it 
and consume it without diminishing it. My possession and 
use of some knowledge doesn't exclude your possession 
and use of the same knowledge. Familiar physical goods 
like land, food, and machines are all rivalrous. To share 
them, we must take turns or settle for portions. Thomas 
Jefferson described this situation beautifully in an 1813 
letter to Isaac McPherson: 

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible 
than all others of exclusive property, it is the action 
of the thinking power called an idea. ... Its peculiar 
character ... is that no one possesses the less, 
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who 
receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself 
without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at 
mine, receives light without darkening mine. 24 

We seldom think about how metaphysically lucky we are 
that knowledge is nonrivalrous. We can all know the same 
ideas, stories, tunes, plans, directions, and words with- 
out my knowledge blocking yours or yours blocking mine. 
We're equally fortunate that speech is nonrivalrous, since 
it allows us to articulate and share our knowledge without 
reducing it to a rivalrous commodity. 


But for all of human history before the digital age, 
writing has been rivalrous. Written or recorded knowl- 
edge became a material object like stone, clay, skin, or pa- 
per, which was necessarily rivalrous. Even when we had 
the printing press and photocopying machine, allowing us 
to make many copies at comparatively low cost, each copy 
was a rivalrous material object. Despite its revolutionary 
impact, writing was hobbled from birth by this tragic limi- 
tation. We could only record nonrivalrous knowledge in a 
rivalrous form. 

Digital writing is the first kind of writing that does not 
reduce recorded knowledge to a rivalrous object. If we all 
have the right equipment, then we can all have copies of the 
same digital text without excluding one another, without 
multiplying our costs, and without depleting our resources. 

I've heard physicists refer to the prospect of room-tem- 
perature superconductivity as a "gift of nature." Unfortu- 
nately, that is not quite within reach. But the nonrivalrous 
property of digital information is a gift of nature that 
we've already grasped and put to work. We only have to 
stand back a moment to appreciate it. To our ancestors, 
the prospect of recording knowledge in precise language, 
symbols, sounds, or images without reducing the record 
to a rivalrous object would have been magical. But we do it 
every day now, and it's losing its magic. 

The danger is not that we already take this property 
for granted but that we might stop short and fail to take 


full advantage of it. It can transform knowledge-sharing 
if we let it. 

We take advantage of this gift when we post valu- 
able work online and permit free access and unrestricted 
use for every user with an internet connection. But if we 
charge for access, enforce exclusion, create artificial scar- 
city, or prohibit essential uses, then we treat the nonrival- 
rous digital file like a rivalrous physical object, dismiss the 
opportunity, and spurn the gift. 

When publishers argue that there is no access problem 
and that we shouldn't fix what isn't broken, there are two 
answers. First, they're wrong. There are deep and serious 
access problems. Publishers who really don't know this 
should talk to the libraries who subscribe to their journals, 
and even more to the libraries who don't. But second, leav- 
ing that quarrel entirely to one side, there are good reasons 
to pursue OA anyway 25 



There are many ways to deliver OA: personal web sites, 
blogs, wikis, databases, ebooks, videos, audios, webcasts, 
discussion forums, RSS feeds, and P2P networks. 1 Unless 
creative thinking stops now, there will be many more to 

However, two delivery vehicles dominate the current 
discussion: journals and repositories. 

OA journals are like non-OA journals except that 
they're OA. Making good on that exception requires a new 
funding model, but nearly everything else about the jour- 
nal could be held constant, if we wanted to hold it constant. 
Some OA journals are very traditional except that they're 
OA, while others deliberately push the evolution of jour- 
nals as a category. (Some toll-access journals also push that 
evolution, if we don't count stopping short of OA.) 

Like conventional, toll-access journals, some OA 
journals are first-rate and some are bottom feeders. Like 

conventional journals, some OA journals are high in pres- 
tige and some are unknown, and some of the unknowns 
are high in quality and some are low. Some are on solid 
financial footing and some are struggling. Also like con- 
ventional journals, most are honest and some are scams. 

As early as 2004, Thomson Scientific found that "in 
each of the broad subject areas studied there was at least 
one OA title that ranked at or near the top of its field" in 
citation impact. The number of high-quality, high-impact 
OA journals has only grown since. 2 

Unlike toll-access journals, however, most OA journals 
are new. It's hard to generalize about OA journals beyond 
saying that they have all the advantages of being OA and 
all the disadvantages of being new. 3 To be more precise: 
A disappointing number of OA journals don't have all the 
advantages of being OA because they retain needless per- 
mission barriers. (See section 3.3 on gratis and libre OA.) 
At the same time, a heartening number of OA journals no 
longer suffer from the disadvantages of being new. 

Like conventional journal publishers, some OA jour- 
nal publishers are for-profit and some are nonprofit. Like 
conventional publishers, there are a few large OA publish- 
ers and a long tail of small ones, although the largest OA 
publishers are small compared to the largest conventional 
publishers. Unlike conventional publishers, the profitable 
for-profit OA publishers have moderate rather than ob- 
scene profit margins. 


OA journals and repositories 
differ in their relationship 
to peer review. OA journals 
perform their own peer 
review, just like conventional 
journals. Repositories gen- 
erally don't perform peer 
review, although they host 
and disseminate articles 
peer-reviewed elsewhere. 
As a result, gold and green 
OA differ in their support 
costs and in the roles they 
can play in the scholarly 
communications universe. 

OA repositories are online collections or databases 
of articles. Unlike OA journals, OA repositories have no 
counterpart in the traditional landscape of scholarly com- 
munication. That makes them woefully easy to overlook or 

By default, new deposits in OA repositories are OA. 
But most repositories today support dark deposits, which 
can be switched to OA at a later date. Most OA reposito- 
ries were launched to host peer-reviewed research articles 
and their preprints. But often they include other sorts of 
content as well, such as theses and dissertations, datasets, 
courseware, and digitized copies of works from the special 
collections of the hosting institution's library. For scholars, 
repositories are better at making work OA than personal 
web sites because repositories provide persistent URLs, 
take steps for long-term preservation, and don't disappear 
when the author changes jobs or dies. 

3.1 Green and Gold OA 1 

Gold and green OA differ in at least two fundamental re- 

First, OA journals and repositories differ in their re- 
lationship to peer review. OA journals perform their own 
peer review, just like conventional journals. Repositories 
generally don't perform peer review, although they host 



The OA movement uses the term gold OA for OA 
delivered by journals, regardless of the journal's 
business model, and green OA for OA delivered 
by repositories. Self-archiving is the practice of 
depositing one's own work in an OA repository 
All three of these terms were coined by Stevan 

and disseminate articles peer-reviewed elsewhere. As a re- 
sult, gold and green OA differ in their support costs and 
in the roles they can play in the scholarly communications 

Second, OA journals obtain the rights or permissions 
they need directly from the rightsholders, while reposi- 
tories ask depositors to obtain the needed rights or per- 
missions on their own. Even when the depositors are the 
authors themselves, they may already have transferred key 
rights to publishers. As a result, OA journals can generate 
permission for reuse at will, and OA repositories generally 
cannot. Hence, most libre OA is gold OA, even if it's not yet 
the case that most gold OAis libre OA. (See more in section 
3.3 on gratis and libre OA.) 


Gold and green OA require different steps from au- 
thors. To make new articles gold OA, authors simply sub- 
mit their manuscripts to OA journals, as they would to 
conventional journals. To make articles green OA, authors 
simply deposit their manuscripts in an OA repository. 

Most importantly, the green/gold distinction matters 
because if authors can't make their work OA one way, they 
can make it OA the other way. One of the most persistent 
and damaging misunderstandings is that all OA is gold 
OA. Authors who can't find a high-quality, high-prestige 
OA journal in their field, or whose submissions are re- 
jected from first-rate OA journals, often conclude that 
they must give up on OA or publish in a second-rate jour- 
nal. But that's hasty. If they publish in the best toll-access 
journal that will accept their work, then — more often than 
not — they may turn around and deposit the peer-reviewed 
manuscript in an OA repository. Most toll-access publish- 
ers and toll-access journals give blanket permission for 
green OA, many others will give permission on request, 
and the numbers approach 100 percent when authors are 
subject to green OA mandates from their funding agencies 
or universities. (More in chapters 4 on OA policies and 10 
on making your own work OA.) 4 

One of the early victories of the OA movement was to 
get a majority of toll-access publishers and journals to give 
blanket permission for author-initiated green OA. But this 
victory remains one of the best-kept secrets of scholarly 


publishing, and widespread ignorance of it is the single 
most harmful consequence of green OA's invisibility. Over- 
looking this victory reduces the volume of OA and creates 
the false impression that a trade-off between prestige and 
OA is common when in fact it is rare. Forgetting that green 
OA is compatible with conventional publishing also feeds 
the false impression that policies requiring green OA actu- 
ally require gold OA and thereby limit the freedom of au- 
thors to submit work to the journals of their choice. (More 
in chapter 4 on policies.) 

Most publishing scholars will choose prestige over OA 
if they have to choose. The good news is that they rarely 
have to choose. The bad news is that few of them know 
that they rarely have to choose. Few realize that most toll- 
access journals permit author-initiated green OA, despite 
determined efforts to explain and publicize this early vic- 
tory for green OA. 

There are two reasons why OA is compatible with 
prestigious publication, a gold reason and a green one. 
The gold reason is that a growing number of OA journals 
have already earned high levels of prestige, and others are 
steadily earning it. If there are no prestigious OA journals 
in your field today, you could wait (things are changing 
fast), you could help out (by submitting your best work), 
or you could move on to green. The green reason why OA is 
compatible with prestige is that most toll-access journals, 
including the prestigious, already allow OA archiving. As 


noted, this "most" can become "all" with the aid of an ef- 
fective OA policy. (See chapter 4 on policies.) 

The most useful OA repositories comply with the 
Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata 
Harvesting (PMH), which makes separate repositories 
play well together. In the jargon, OAI compliance makes 
repositories interoperable, allowing the worldwide network 
of individual repositories to behave like a single grand vir- 
tual repository that can be searched all at once. It means 
that users can find a work in an OAI-compliant repository 
without knowing which repositories exist, where they are 
located, or what they contain. (OA and OAI are separate 
but overlapping initiatives.) 5 

Most of the major academic and nonacademic search 
engines crawl OA journals and OA repositories. For ex- 
ample, Google, Bing, and Yahoo all do this and do it from 
self-interest. These search engines now provide another 
method (beyond OAI -based interoperability) for searching 
across the whole network of repositories without knowing 
what exists where. A common misunderstanding sees OA 
repositories as walled gardens that make work hard to find 
by requiring readers to make separate visits to separate re- 
positories to run separate searches. The reverse is true in 
two senses: OA repositories make work easier to find, and 
toll-access collections are the ones more likely to be walled 
gardens, either invisible to search engines or requiring 
separate visits and separate searches. 


Disciplinary repositories (also called subject reposito- 
ries) try to capture all the research in a given field, while in- 
stitutional repositories try to capture all the research from 
a given institution. Because both kinds tend to be OAI- 
compliant and interoperable, the differences matter very 
little for readers. Readers who want to browse a repository 
for serendipity are more likely to find useful content in a 
disciplinary repository in the right field than in an institu- 
tional repository. But most scholars find repository con- 
tent by keyword searches, not by browsing, and through 
cross-archive searches, not through local single-repository 
searches. 6 

However, the differences between disciplinary and in- 
stitutional repositories matter more for authors. On the 
one hand, institutions are in a better position than disci- 
plines to offer incentives and assistance for deposit, and 
to adopt policies to ensure deposit. A growing number of 
universities do just that. On the other hand, scholars who 
regularly read research in a large disciplinary repository, 
such as arXiv for physics or PubMed Central for medicine, 
readily grasp the rationale for depositing their work in OA 
repositories and need less nudging to do so themselves. 
(More in chapter 4 on policies.) 7 

Because most publishers and journals already give 
blanket permission for green OA, the burden is on authors 
to take advantage of it. In the absence of an institutional 
policy to encourage or require deposits, the spontaneous 


rate of deposit is about 15 percent. Institutions requiring 
deposit can push the rate toward 100 percent over a few 
years. 8 

The reason the spontaneous rate is lower than the 
nudged, assisted, and mandated rate is rarely opposition 
to OA itself. Almost always it's unfamiliarity with green 
OA (belief that all OA is gold OA), misunderstanding of 
green OA (belief that it violates copyright, bypasses peer 
review, or forecloses the possibility of publishing in a ven- 
erable journal), and fear that it is time-consuming. In this 
sense, author unfamiliarity and misunderstanding are 
greater obstacles to OA than actual opposition, whether 
from authors or publishers. 9 

The remedies are already spreading worldwide: launch- 
ing more OA journals and repositories, educating research- 
ers about their gold and green OA options, and adopting 
intelligent policies to encourage gold OA and require green 
OA. (More in chapter 4 on OA policies.) 

3.2 Green and Gold as Complementary 10 

Some friends of OA focus their energy on green OA and 
some focus on gold OA. Some support both kinds about 
equally and have merely specialized. But some give one 
a higher strategic priority than the other. I'll argue that 
green and gold OA are complementary and synergistic. We 


should pursue them simultaneously, much as an organism 
must develop its nervous system and digestive system si- 

Fortunately, this synergy is served even by differences 
of opinion about its existence. The fact that some activists 
give green OA a higher priority than gold, and some the 
reverse, creates a natural division of labor ensuring that 
good people are working hard on each front. 

Green OA has some advantages over gold OA. It makes 
faster progress, since it doesn't require the launch of new 
peer-reviewed journals or the conversion of old ones. For 
the same reason, it's less expensive than gold OA and can 
scale up quickly and inexpensively to meet demand, while 
the bulk of the money needed to scale up OA journals is 
still tied up in subscriptions to toll-access journals. 

Green OA can be mandated without infringing aca- 
demic freedom, but gold OA cannot. (More precisely, 
gold OA can't be mandated without infringing academic 
freedom until virtually all peer-reviewed journals are OA, 
which isn't on the horizon.) A green OA policy at a uni- 
versity can cover the institution's entire research output, 
regardless of where authors choose to publish, while a gold 
OA policy can only cover the new articles that faculty are 
willing to submit to OA journals. 

Green OA is compatible with toll-access publication. 
Sometimes this is because toll-access publishers hold 
the needed rights and decide to allow it, and sometimes 


because authors retain the needed rights. Well-drafted OA 
policies can ensure that authors always retain the needed 
rights and spare them the need to negotiate with publish- 
ers. (See chapters 4 on policies and 6 on copyright.) 

When the best journals in a field are toll-access — often 
the case today even if changing — green OA allows authors 
to have their cake and eat it too. Authors good enough to 
publish in the best journals may do so and still make their 
work OA, without waiting for high -prestige OA journals to 
emerge in their fields. When promotion and tenure com- 
mittees create strong incentives to publish in venerable 
toll-access journals — often the case today even if chang- 
ing — green OA allows authors to make their work OA 
without bucking institutional incentives or relinquishing 
institutional rewards. 

Green OA works for preprints as well as postprints, 
while gold OA only works for postprints. For the same 
reason, green OA works for other kinds of work that peer- 
reviewed journals generally don't publish, such as datasets, 
source code, theses and dissertations, and digitized copies 
of work previously available only in another medium such 
as print, microfiche, or film. 

On the other side, gold OA has some advantages 
over green OA. Gold OA articles needn't labor under re- 
strictions imposed by toll-access publishers fearful of OA. 
Hence, gold OA is always immediate, while green OA is 
sometimes embargoed or delayed. Similarly, gold OA can 


When the best journals in 
a field are toll-access — 
often the case today 
even if changing — green 
OA allows authors to 
have their cake and eat 
it too. Authors good 
enough to publish in the 
best journals may do 
so and still make their 
work OA, without wait- 
ing for high-prestige OA 
journals to emerge in 
their fields. 

always be libre, even if it doesn't take sufficient advantage 
of this opportunity, while green OA seldom even has the 
opportunity (See chapter 4 on policies.) 

Gold OA provides OA to the published version, while 
green OA is often limited to the final version of the au- 
thor's peer-reviewed manuscript, without copy editing or 
final pagination. Making the OA edition the same as the 
published edition reduces the confusion caused by the cir- 
culation of multiple versions. 

Gold OA performs its own peer review, without de- 
pending on toll-access journals to perform it. Hence sup- 
port for gold OA supports the survival of peer review itself 
in case toll-access journals can no longer provide it. 

Finally, green OA may be a manageable expense, but 
gold OA can be self-sustaining, even profitable. 

Librarians traditionally distinguish four functions per- 
formed by scholarly journals: Registration (time stamp), 
certification (peer review), awareness (distribution), and 
archiving (preservation). We know that green and gold 
OA are complementary as soon as we recognize that green 
is better than gold for registration (its time stamps are 
faster) and preservation, and that gold OA is better than 
green OA for certification (peer review). 

Some see green OA mainly as a tool to force a transi- 
tion to gold OA. The idea is that rising levels of green OA 
will trigger the cancellation of conventional journals and 
pressure them to convert to gold OA. The growing volume 


of green OA might have this effect. Some publishers fear 
that it will, and some OA activists hope that it will. But 
it might not have this effect at all. One piece of evidence 
is that green OA hasn't triggered journal cancellations in 
physics, where levels of green OA approach 100 percent 
and have been high and growing for nearly two decades. 
(More in chapter 8 on casualties.) Even if it did have this 
effect, however, it wouldn't follow that it is the best strat- 
egy for advancing gold OA. There are good prospects for a 
peaceful revolution based on publisher consent and self- 
interest. (More in chapter 7 on economics.) 

Most importantly, however, we'll still want green OA 
in a world where all peer-reviewed journals are OA. For ex- 
ample, we'll want green OA for preprints and for the earli- 
est possible time-stamp to establish the author's priority. 
We'll want green OA for datasets, theses and dissertations, 
and other research genres not published in journals. We'll 
want green OA for the security of having multiple OA cop- 
ies in multiple independent locations. (Even today, the 
best OA journals not only distribute their articles from 
their own web sites but also deposit copies in indepen- 
dent OA repositories.) At least until the very last conven- 
tional journal converts to OA, we'll need green OA so that 
research institutions can mandate OA without limiting 
the freedom of authors to submit to the journals of their 
choice. We'll even want OA repositories as the distribution 
mechanism for many OA journals themselves. 


A worldwide network of OA repositories would sup- 
port one desirable evolution of what we now call journals. 
It would allow us to decouple peer review from distribution. 
Peer review could be performed by freestanding editorial 
boards and distribution by the network of repositories. 
Decoupling would remove the perverse incentive for peer- 
review providers to raise access barriers or impede distri- 
bution. It would also remove their perverse incentive to 
demand exclusive rights over research they didn't fund, 
perform, write up, or buy from the authors. 11 

On the other side, we'll still want gold OA in a world 
where all new articles are green OA. High-volume green 
OA may not have caused toll-access journal cancellations 
yet, even in fields where green OA approaches 100 percent. 
But we can't say that it will never do so, and we can't say 
that every field will behave like physics in this respect. If 
peer-reviewed toll-access journals are not sustainable (see 
section 2.1), then the survival of peer review will depend 
on a shift to peer-reviewed OA journals. 

It won't matter whether toll-access journals are endan- 
gered by rising levels of green OA, by their own hyperinfla- 
tionary price increases, or by their failure to scale with the 
rapid growth of new research. If any combination of these 
causes puts peer-reviewed toll-access journals in jeopardy, 
then peer review will depend on OA journals, which are 
not endangered by any of those causes. (In chapter 8 on 
casualties, we'll see evidence that toll-access journal price 


increases cause many more cancellations than green OA 

Finally, if all new articles are green OA, we'll still want 
the advantages that are easier for gold OA than for green 
OA to provide: freedom from permission barriers, freedom 
from delays or embargoes, and freedom from ever-rising 
drains on library budgets. 

Neither green nor gold OA will suffice, long-term or 
short-term. That's a reason to pursue both. 

3.3 Gratis and Libre OA 12 

Sometimes we must speak unambiguously about two sub- 
species of OA. One removes price barriers alone and the 
other removes price barriers and at least some permission 
barriers. The former is gratis OA and the latter lihre OA. 

To sharpen their definitions, we need a quick detour 
into fair use. In the United States, fair use is an exception 
to copyright law allowing users to reproduce copyrighted 
work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news re- 
porting, teaching . . . , scholarship, or research" (to quote 
the U.S. copyright statute). 13 

Fair use has four characteristics that matter to us here. 
First, the permission for fair use is granted by law and 
needn't be sought from the copyright holder. Or equiva- 
lently, the statute assures us that no permission is needed 


because fair use "is not an infringement of copyright." Sec- 
ond, the permission is limited and doesn't cover all the 
uses that scholars might want to make. To exceed fair use, 
users must obtain permission from the copyright holder. 
Third, most countries have some equivalent of fair use, 
though they differ significantly in what they allow and dis- 
allow. Finally, fair use is vague. There are clear cases of fair 
use (quoting a short snippet in a review) and clear cases 
of exceeding fair use (reprinting a full-text book), but the 
boundary between the two is fuzzy and contestable. 

Gratis OA is free of charge but not more free than that. 
Users must still seek permission to exceed fair use. Gratis 
OA removes price barriers but not permission barriers. 

Libre OA is free of charge and also free of some copy- 
right and licensing restrictions. Users have permission to 
exceed fair use, at least in certain ways. Because there are 
many ways to exceed fair use, there are many degrees or 
kinds of libre OA. Libre OA removes price barriers and at 
least some permission barriers. 

Fortunately, we don't always need these terms. Indeed, 
in most of this book I use "OA" without qualification. The 
generic term causes no trouble until we need to talk about 
differences between gratis and libre OA, just as "carbohy- 
drate" causes no trouble until we need to talk about differ- 
ences between simple and complex carbohydrates. 

I'm borrowing the gratis/libre language from the world 
of software, where it expresses the same distinction. If the 


terms sound odd in English, it's because English doesn't 
have more domesticated terms for this distinction. Their 
oddity in English may even be an advantage, since the 
terms don't carry extra baggage, as "open" and "free" do, 
which therefore helps us avoid ambiguity 14 

First note that the gratis/libre distinction is not the 
same as the green/gold distinction. The gratis/libre dis- 
tinction is about user rights or freedoms, while the green/ 
gold distinction is about venues or vehicles. Gratis/libre 
answers the question, how open is it? Green/gold answers 
the question, how is it delivered? 15 

Green OA can be gratis or libre but is usually gratis. Gold 
OA can be gratis or libre, but is also usually gratis. However, 
it's easier for gold OA to be libre than for green OA to be 
libre, which is why the campaign to go beyond gratis OA to 
libre OA focuses more on journals than repositories. 

If users encounter a full-text work online without 
charge, then they know it's gratis OA. They don't have to 
be told, even if they'd like to be told — for example, so that 
they don't have to wonder whether they're reading an il- 
licit copy. But users can't figure out whether a work is libre 
OA unless the provider (author or publisher) tells them. 
This is the purpose of a license, which is simply a statement 
from the copyright holder explaining what users may and 
may not do with a given work. 

Works under "all-rights-reserved" copyrights don't 
need licenses, because "all rights reserved" means that 


without special permission users may do nothing that ex- 
ceeds fair use. 

The default around the world today is that new works 
are copyrighted from birth (no registration required), that 
the copyright initially belongs to the author (but is trans- 
ferable by contract), and that the rights holder reserves 
all rights. Authors who want to provide libre OA must af- 
firmatively waive some of their rights and use a license to 
tell users they've done so. For convenience, let's say that an 
open license is one allowing some degree of libre OA. 

Although the word "copyright" is singular, it covers a 
plurality of rights, and authors may waive some and re- 
tain others. They may do so in any combination that suits 
their needs. That's why there are many nonequivalent 
open licenses and nonequivalent types of libre OA. What's 
important here is that waiving some rights in order to 
provide libre OA does not require waiving all rights or 
waiving copyright altogether. On the contrary, open li- 
censes presuppose copyright, since they express permis- 
sions from the copyright holder. Moreover, the rights 
not waived are fully enforceable. In the clear and sensi- 
ble language of Creative Commons, open licenses create 
"some-rights-reserved" copyrights rather than "all-rights- 
reserved" copyrights. 

The open licenses from Creative Commons (CC) are 
the best-known and most widely used. But there are other 
open licenses, and authors and publishers can always write 


their own. To illustrate the range of libre OA, however, it's 
convenient to look at the CC licenses. 16 

The maximal degree of libre OA belongs to works in 
the public domain. Either these works were never under 
copyright or their copyrights have expired. Works in the 
public domain may be used in any way whatsoever without 
violating copyright law. That's why it's lawful to translate 
or reprint Shakespeare without hunting down his heirs for 
permission. Creative Commons offers CCO (CC-Zero) for 
copyright holders who want to assign their work to the 
public domain. 17 

The CC Attribution license (CC- BY) describes the least 
restrictive sort of libre OA after the public domain. It al- 
lows any use, provided the user attributes the work to the 
original author. This is the license recommended by the 
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) 
and the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval program for OA 
journals. 18 I support this recommendation, use CC-BY for 
my blog and newsletter, and request CC-BY whenever I 
publish in a journal. 

CC supports several other open licenses as well, includ- 
ing CC-BY-NC, which requires attribution and blocks com- 
mercial use, and CC-BY-ND, which requires attribution and 
allows commercial use but blocks derivative works. These 
licenses are not equivalent to one another, but they all per- 
mit uses beyond fair use and therefore they all represent 
different flavors of libre OA. 


While you can write your own open licenses or use 
those created by others, the advantage of CC licenses is 
that they are ready-made, lawyer-drafted, enforceable, 
understood by a large and growing number of users, and 
available in a large and growing number of legal jurisdic- 
tions. Moreover, each comes in three versions: human- 
readable for nonlawyers, lawyer-readable for lawyers and 
judges, and machine-readable for search engines and other 
visiting software. They're extremely convenient and their 
convenience has revolutionized libre OA. 

The best way to refer to a specific flavor of libre OA is 
by referring to a specific open license. We'll never have un- 
ambiguous, widely understood technical terms for every 
useful variation on the theme. But we already have clearly 
named licenses for all the major variations on the theme, 
and we can add new ones for more subtle variations any 
time we want. 

A work without an open license stands or appears to 
stand under an all-rights-reserved copyright. If the rights 
holder privately welcomes uses beyond fair use, or has 
decided not to sue for certain kinds of infringement, or- 
dinary users have no way to know that and are forced to 
choose the least of three evils: the delay of asking permis- 
sion, the risk of proceeding without it, and the harm of 
erring on the side of nonuse. These are not only obstacles 
to research; they are obstacles that libre OA was designed 
to remove. 


The BBB definition calls for both gratis and libre OA. 
However, most of the notable OA success stories are gratis 
and not libre. I mean this in two senses: gratis success sto- 
ries are more numerous than libre success stories, so far, 
and most gratis success stories are notable. Even if they 
stop short of libre OA, they are hard- won victories and ma- 
jor advances. 

Some observers look at the prominent gratis OA suc- 
cess stories and conclude that the OA movement focuses on 
gratis OA and neglects libre. Others look at the public defi- 
nitions and conclude that OA focuses on libre OA and dis- 
parages gratis. Both assessments are one-sided and unfair. 

One hard fact is that gratis OA is often attainable in 
circumstances when libre OA is not attainable. For exam- 
ple, a major victory of the OA movement has been to per- 
suade the majority of toll-access publishers and toll-access 
journals to allow green gratis OA. We're very far from the 
same position for green libre OA. Similarly, most of the 
strong OA policies at funding agencies and universities re- 
quire green gratis OA. A few require green libre OA, and 
green libre OA is growing for other reasons. But if these 
funders and universities had waited until they could mus- 
ter the votes for a green libre policy, most of them would 
still be waiting. (See section 4.3 on the historical timing of 
OA policies.) 

A second hard fact is that even gratis OA policies 
can face serious political obstacles. They may be easier 


to adopt than libre policies, but in most cases they're far 
from easy. The OA policy at the U.S. National Institutes of 
Health was first proposed by Congress in 2004, adopted as 
a mere request or encouragement in 2005, and strength- 
ened into a requirement in 2008. Every step along the way 
was strenuously opposed by an aggressive and well- funded 
publishing lobby. Yet even now the policy provides only 
gratis OA, not libre OA. Similarly, the gratis OA policies at 
funders and universities were only adopted after years of 
patiently educating decision-makers and answering their 
objections and misunderstandings. Reaching the point of 
adoption, and especially unanimous votes for adoption, is 
a cause for celebration, even if the policies only provide 
gratis, not libre OA. 19 

The Directory of Open Access Journals is the most au- 
thoritative catalog of OA journals and the only one limit- 
ing itself to peer-reviewed journals. But only 20 percent of 
titles in the DOAJ use CC licenses, and fewer than 11 per- 
cent use the recommended CC-BY license. Viewed the other 
way around, about 80 percent of peer-reviewed OA jour- 
nals don't use any kind of CC license. Some of these might 
use non-CC licenses with a similar legal effect, but these ex- 
ceptions are rare. Simply put, most OA journals are not us- 
ing open licenses. Most operate under all-rights-reserved 
copyrights and leave their users with no more freedom 
than they already had under fair use. Most are not offer- 
ing libre OA. Even those wanting to block commercial use, 


for example, tend to use an all-rights-reserved, copyright 
rather than an open license that blocks commercial use, 
such as CC-BY-NC, but allows libre OA in other respects. 20 

I've argued that it's unfair to criticize the OA move- 
ment for disparaging gratis OA (merely on the ground that 
its public statements call for libre) or neglecting libre OA 
(merely on the ground that most of its success stories are 
gratis). But two related criticisms would be more just. First, 
demanding libre or nothing where libre is currently unat- 
tainable makes the perfect the enemy of the good. For- 
tunately, this tactical mistake is rare. Second, settling for 
gratis where libre is attainable makes the good a substitute 
for the better. Unfortunately, this tactical mistake is com- 
mon, as we see from the majority of OA journals that stop 
at gratis when they could easily offer libre. 

Let's be more specific about the desirability of libre OA. 
Why should we bother, especially when we may already 
have attained gratis OA? The answer is that we need libre 
OA to spare users the delay and expense of seeking permis- 
sion whenever they want to exceed fair use. And there are 
good scholarly reasons to exceed fair use. For example: 

• to quote long excerpts 

• to distribute full-text copies to students or colleagues 

• to burn copies on CDs for bandwidth-poor parts of the 


• to distribute semantically-tagged or otherwise enhanced 
(i.e., modified) versions 

• to migrate texts to new formats or media to keep them 
readable as technologies change 

• to create and archive copies for long-term preservation 

• to include works in a database or mashup 

• to make an audio recording of a text 

• to translate a text into another language 

• to copy a text for indexing, text-mining, or other kinds 
of processing 

In some jurisdictions, some of these uses may actually 
fall under fair use, even if most do not. Courts have settled 
some of the boundaries of fair use but by no means all of 
them, and in any case users can't be expected to know all 
the relevant court rulings. Uncertainty about these bound- 
aries, and increasingly severe penalties for copyright in- 
fringement, make users fear liability and act cautiously. It 
makes them decide that they can't use something they'd 
like to use, or that they must delay their research in order 
to seek permission. 

Libre OA under open licenses solves all these problems. 
Even when a desirable use is already allowed by fair use, 
a clear open license removes all doubt. When a desirable 


use does exceed fair use, a clear open license removes the 
restriction and offers libre OA. 

When you can offer libre OA, don't leave users with no 
more freedom than fair use. Don't leave them uncertain 
about what they may and may not do. Don't make consci- 
entious users choose between the delay of seeking permis- 
sion and the risk of proceeding without it. Don't increase 
the pressure to make users less conscientious. Don't make 
them pay for permission. Don't make them err on the side 
of nonuse. Make your work as usable and useful as it can 
possibly be. 21 



4.1 OA Policies at Funding Agencies and Universities 1 

Authors control the volume and growth of OA. They de- 
cide whether to submit their work to OA journals (gold 
OA), whether to deposit their work in OA repositories 
(green OA), and how to use their copyrights. But scholarly 
authors are still largely unfamiliar with their OA options. 
It's pointless to appeal to them as a bloc because they don't 
act as a bloc. It's not hard to persuade or even excite them 
once we catch their attention, but because they are so an- 
archical, overworked, and preoccupied, it's hard to catch 
their attention. 

Fortunately, funding agencies and universities are 
discovering their own interests in fostering OA. These 
nonprofit institutions make it their mission to advance 
research and to make that research as useful and widely 

available as possible. Their money frees researchers to do 
their work and avoid the need to tie their income to the 
popularity of their ideas. Above all, these institutions are 
in an unparalleled position to influence author decisions. 

Today, more than fifty funding agencies and more than 
one hundred universities have adopted strong OA policies. 
Each one depends on the primacy of author decisions. 2 

One kind of policy, better than nothing, requests or 
encourages OA. A stronger kind of policy requires OA or 
makes it the default for new work. These stronger policies 
are usually called OA mandates and I'll use that term for 
lack of a better one (but see section 4.2 on how it's mis- 
leading) . 

0. Request or encouragement policies These merely ask 
faculty to make their work OA, or recommend OA for their 
new work. Sometimes they're called resolutions or pledges 
rather than policies. 3 

Encouragement policies can target green and gold OA 
equally. By contrast, mandates only make sense for green 
OA, at least today when OA journals constitute only about 
one-quarter of peer-reviewed journals. A gold OA mandate 
would put most peer-reviewed journals off-limits and se- 
riously limit faculty freedom to submit their work to the 
journals of their choice. This problem doesn't arise for 
green OA mandates. 


Fortunately, this is well understood. There are no gold 
OA mandates anywhere; all OA mandates are green. Un- 
fortunately, however, many people mistakenly believe that 
all OA is gold OA and therefore mistake proposed green 
OA mandates for proposed gold OA mandates and raise 
objections that would only apply to gold OA mandates. But 
as more academics understand the green/gold distinction, 
and understand that well-written green OA mandates are 
compatible with academic freedom, more institutions are 
adopting green OA mandates, almost always at the initia- 
tive of faculty themselves. 4 

At universities, there are roughly three approaches to 
green OA mandates: 

1. Loophole mandates These require green OA except 
when the author's publisher doesn't allow it. 5 

2. Deposit mandates These require deposit in an OA re- 
pository as soon as the article is accepted for publication, 
but they separate the timing of deposit from the timing of 
OA. If the author's publisher doesn't allow OA, then these 
policies keep the deposited article dark or non-OA. If the 
publisher allows OA, immediately or after some embargo, 
then the deposit becomes OA as soon as the permission 
kicks in. Because most publishers allow OA on some time- 
table, this method will provide OA to most new work in 
due time. 

Deposit mandates generally depend on publisher 
permission for OA, just like loophole mandates. The dif- 
ference is that they require deposit even when they can't 
obtain permission for OA. 6 

3. Rights-retention mandates These require deposit in an 
OA repository as soon as the article is accepted for publi- 
cation, just like deposit mandates. But they add a method 
to secure permission for making the deposit OA. There's 
more than one way to secure that permission. At the Well- 
come Trust and NIH, which pioneered this approach for 
funding agencies, when grantees publish articles based on 
their funded research they must retain the nonexclusive 
right to authorize OA through a repository. At Harvard, 
which pioneered this approach for universities, faculty 
members vote to give the university a standing nonex- 
clusive right (among other nonexclusive rights) to make 
their future work OA through the institutional repository. 
When faculty publish articles after that, the university al- 
ready has the needed permission, and faculty needn't take 
any special steps to retain rights or negotiate with pub- 
lishers. Nor need they wait for the publisher's embargo to 
run. Harvard-style policies also give faculty a waiver op- 
tion, allowing them to opt out of the grant of permission 
to the university, though not out of the deposit require- 
ment. When faculty members obtain waivers for given 
works, then Harvard-style mandates operate like deposit 

chapter u 

mandates and the works remain dark deposits until the 
institution has permission to make them OA. 7 

Many OA policies are crossbreeds rather than pure 
types, but all the policies I've seen are variations on these 
four themes. 

First note that none of the three "mandates" abso- 
lutely requires OA. Loophole mandates allow some work 
to escape through the loophole. Deposit mandates allow 
some deposited work to remain dark (non-OA), by fol- 
lowing publisher preferences. Rights-retention mandates 
with waiver options allow some work to remain dark, by 
following author preferences. 

Loophole and deposit policies defer to publishers for 
permissions, while rights-retention policies obtain per- 
mission from authors before they transfer rights to pub- 
lishers. For loophole and deposit policies, permission is 
contingent, because some publishers are willing and some 
are not. For rights-retention policies, permission is as- 
sured, at least initially or by default, although authors may 
opt out for any publication. 

When loophole policies can't provide OA, covered 
works needn't make it to the repository even as dark de- 
posits. When deposit and rights-retention policies can't 
provide OA, at least they require dark deposit for the texts, 
and OA for the metadata (information about author, title, 
date, and so on). Releasing the metadata makes even a 

dark deposit visible to readers and search engines. More- 
over, many repositories support an email-request button 
for works on dark deposit. The button enables a reader to 
submit a one-click request for a full-text email copy and 
enables the author to grant or deny the request with a one- 
click response. 8 

We could say that rights-retention policies require OA 
except when authors opt out, or that they simply shift the 
default to OA. Those are two ways of saying the same thing 
because, either way, faculty remain free to decide for or 
against OA for each of their publications. Preserving this 
freedom and making it conspicuous help muster faculty 
support, indeed, unanimous faculty votes. Because shift- 
ing the default is enough to change behavior on a large 
scale, waiver options don't significantly reduce the volume 
of OA. At Harvard the waiver rate is less than 5 percent, 
and at MIT it's less than 2 percent. 

Loophole policies and rights-retention policies both 
offer opt-outs. But loophole policies give the opt-out to 
publishers and rights-retention policies give it to authors. 
The difference is significant because many more authors 
than publishers want OA for research articles. 

Many institutions adopt loophole policies because 
they believe a blanket exemption for dissenting publishers 
is the only way to avoid copyright problems. But that is not 
true. Deposit policies don't make works OA until publish- 
ers allow OA, and rights-retention policies close the loop- 


hole and obtain permission directly from authors at a time 
when authors are the copyright holders. 

OA policies from funding agencies are very much like 
OA policies from universities. They can encourage green 
and gold OA, or they can require green OA. If they re- 
quire green OA, they can do so in one of the three ways 
above. If there's a difference, it's that when funders adopt a 
rights-retention mandate, they typically don't offer waiver 
options. On the contrary, the Wellcome Trust and NIH 
require their grantees to make their work OA through a 
certain OA repository on a certain timetable and to retain 
the right to authorize that OA. If a given publisher will not 
allow grantees to comply with their prior funding agree- 
ment, then grantees must look for another publisher. 9 

There are two reasons why these strong funder poli- 
cies don't infringe faculty freedom to submit work to their 
journals of their choice. First, researchers needn't seek 
funds from these funders. When they choose to do so, 
then they agree to the OA provisions, just as they agree 
to the other terms and conditions of the grant. The OA 
"mandate" is a condition on a voluntary contract, not an 
unconditional requirement. It's a reasonable condition as 
well, since public funders, like the NIH, disburse public 
money in the public interest, and private funders, like the 
Wellcome Trust, disburse charitable money for charitable 
purposes. To my knowledge, no researchers have refused 
to apply for Wellcome or NIH funds because of the OA 

condition, even when they plan to publish in OA-averse 
journals. The OA condition benefits authors and has not 
been a deal-breaker. 

Second, virtually all publishers accommodate these 
policies. For example, no surveyed publishers anywhere 
refuse to publish work by NIH-funded authors on account 
of the agency's OA mandate. Hence, in practice grant- 
ees may still submit work to the journals of their choice, 
even without a waiver option to accommodate holdout 
publishers. 10 

We should never forget that most toll-access journals 
already allow green OA and that a growing number of high- 
quality, high-prestige peer-reviewed journals are gold OA. 
From one point of view, we don't need OA mandates when 
authors already plan to publish in one of those journals. 
But sometimes toll-access journals change their positions 
on green OA. Sometimes authors don't get around to mak- 
ing their work green OA even when their journals allow it. 
And sometimes authors don't publish in one of those jour- 
nals. The final rationale for green OA mandates, then, is 
for institutions to bring about OA for their entire research 
output, regardless of how publishers might alter their 
policies, regardless of author inertia, and regardless of the 
journals in which faculty or grantees choose to publish. 

Green OA mandates don't assure OA to the entire 
research output of a university or funding agency, for 
the same reason that they don't require OA without 


The OA "mandate" is a 
condition on a voluntary 
contract, not an uncon- 
ditional requirement. 
It's a reasonable condi- 
tion as well, since public 
funders, like the NIH, 
disburse public money 
in the public interest, 
and private funders, like 
the Wellcome Trust, dis- 
burse charitable money 
for charitable purposes. 

qualification. But implementing them provides OA to a 
much larger percentage of the research output than was 
already headed toward OA journals or OA repositories, and 
does so while leaving authors free to submit their work to 
the journals of their choice. 

I've only tried to give a rough taxonomy of OA policies 
and their supporting arguments. For detailed recommen- 
dations on OA policy provisions, and specific arguments 
for them, see my 2009 analysis of policy options for fund- 
ing agencies and universities. 11 

I've also focused here on OA policies for peer-reviewed 
research articles. Many universities have adopted OA man- 
dates for theses and dissertations, and many funder OA 
policies also cover datasets. A growing number of universi- 
ties supplement OA mandates for articles with a sensible 
and effective policy to assure compliance: When faculty 
come up for promotion or tenure, the review committee 
will only consider journal articles on deposit in the institu- 
tional repository 12 

4.2 Digression on the Word "Mandate" 13 

The strongest OA policies use words like "must" or "shall" 

and require or seem to require OA. They're commonly 

called OA "mandates." But all three varieties of university 

"mandate" above show why the term is misleading. Loop- 

chapter u 

hole mandates don't require OA without qualification: 
when publishers dissent, articles are either not depos- 
ited in the repository or not made OA. Deposit mandates 
don't require OA without qualification: when publishers 
dissent, articles are deposited in a repository but are not 
made OA. Rights-retention mandates with waiver options 
don't require OA without qualification: authors may ob- 
tain waivers and sometimes do. I haven't seen a univer- 
sity OA "mandate" anywhere without at least one of these 
three kinds of flexibility. 

That's the main reason why no university policies 
require OA without qualification. There are a few more. 
First, as Harvard's Stuart Shieber frequently argues, even 
the strongest university policies can't make tenured fac- 
ulty comply. 14 Second, as I've frequently argued, successful 
policies are implemented through expectations, education, 
incentives, and assistance, not coercion. Third, even the 
strongest policies — even the no-loophole, no-deference, 
no-waiver policies at the Wellcome Trust and NIH — make 
OA a condition on a voluntary contract. No policy any- 
where pretends to impose an unconditional OA require- 
ment, and it's hard to imagine how any policy could even 
try. ("You must make your work OA even if you don't work 
for us or use our funds"?) 

Unfortunately, we don't have a good vocabulary for 
policies that use mandatory language while deferring to 
third-person dissents or offering first-person opt-outs. 

Nor do we have a good vocabulary for policies that use 
mandatory language and replace enforcement with com- 
pliance-building through expectations, education, incen- 
tives, and assistance. The word "mandate" is not a very 
good fit for policies like this, but neither is any other Eng- 
lish word. 

By contrast, we do have a good word for policies that 
use mandatory language for those who agree to be bound. 
We call them "contracts." While "contract" is short, accu- 
rate, and unfrightening, it puts the accent on the author's 
consent to be bound. That's often illuminating, but just as 
often we want to put the accent on the content's destiny to 
become OA. For that purpose, "mandate" has become the 
term of art, for better or worse. 15 

I use "mandate" with reluctance because it can frighten 
some of the people I'm trying to persuade and can give rise 
to misunderstandings about the policies behind the label. 
When we have time and space for longer phrases, we can 
talk about "putting an OA condition" on research grants, 
in the case of NIH-style policies, or "shifting the default 
to OA" for faculty research, in the case of Harvard-style 
policies. These longer expressions are more accurate and 
less frightening. However, sometimes we need a short- 
hand term, and we need a term that draws an appropri- 
ately sharp contrast with policies that merely request or 
encourage OA. 


If anyone objects that a policy containing mandatory 
language and a waiver option isn't really a "mandate," I 
won't disagree. On the contrary, I applaud them for recog- 
nizing a nuance which too many others overlook. (It's de- 
pressing how many PhDs can read a policy with mandatory 
language and a waiver option, notice the mandatory lan- 
guage, overlook the waiver option, and then cite the lack 
of flexibility as an objection.) But denying that a policy is a 
mandate can create its own kinds of misunderstanding. In 
the United States, citizens called for jury duty must appear, 
even if many can claim exemptions and go home again. We 
can say that jury duty with exemptions isn't really a "duty," 
provided we don't conclude that it's merely a request and 

Finally, a common misunderstanding deliberately 
promulgated by some publishers is that OA must be 
"mandated" because faculty don't want it. This position 
gets understandable but regrettable mileage from the 
word "mandate." It also overlooks decisive counter-evi- 
dence that we've had in hand since 2004. Alma Swan's 
empirical studies of researcher attitudes show that an 
overwhelming majority of researchers would "willingly" 
comply with a mandatory OA policy from their funder 
or employer. 16 

The most recent evidence of faculty willingness is the 
stunning series of strong OA policies adopted by unani- 
mous faculty votes. (When is the last time you heard of a 

unanimous faculty vote for anything, let alone anything 
of importance?) As recently as 2007, speculation that we'd 
soon see more than two dozen unanimous faculty votes for 
OA policies would have been dismissed as wishful think- 
ing. But now that the evidence lies before us, what looks 
like wishful thinking is the publishing lobby's idea that OA 
must be mandated because faculty don't want it. 17 

Finally, the fact that faculty vote unanimously for 
strong OA policies is a good reason to keep looking for a 
better word than "mandate." At least it's a good reason to 
look past the colloquial implications of the term to the 
policies themselves and the players who drafted and ad- 
opted them. Since 2008, most OA "mandates" at universi- 
ties have been self-imposed by faculty. 

4.3 Digression on the Historical Timing of OA Policies 18 

Some kinds of strong OA policy that are politically unat- 
tainable or unwise today may become attainable and wise 
in the future. Here are three examples. 

1. Today, a libre green mandate (say, one giving us- 
ers the right to copy and redistribute, not just access for 
reading) would face serious publisher resistance. Even if 
the policy included rights retention and didn't depend on 
publishers for permissions, publisher resistance would 
still matter because publishers possess — and ought to 


possess — the right to refuse to publish any work for any 
reason. They could refuse to publish authors bound by a 
libre green policy, or they could insist on a waiver from 
the policy as a condition of publication. Policies trigger- 
ing rejections hurt authors, and policies driving up waiver 
rates don't do much to help OA. However, publisher resis- 
tance might diminish as the ratio of OA publishers to toll- 
access publishers tilts toward OA, as spontaneous author 
submissions shift toward OA journals, or as the number of 
institutions with libre green mandates makes resistance 
more costly than accommodation for publishers. When OA 
policies are toothless, few in number, or concentrated in 
small institutions, then they must accommodate publish- 
ers in order to avoid triggering rejections and hurting au- 
thors. But as policies grow in number, scope, and strength, 
the situation could flip over, and publishers will have to 
accommodate OA policies in order to avoid hurting them- 
selves by rejecting too many good authors for reasons un- 
related to the quality of their work. 19 

2. Today, a gold OA mandate would limit faculty 
freedom to submit work to the journals of their choice. 
But that's because today only about 25 percent of peer- 
reviewed journals are OA. As this percentage grows, then 
a gold OA mandate's encroachment on academic freedom 
shrinks. At some point even the most zealous defenders 
of faculty freedom may decide that the encroachment is 
negligible. In principle the encroachment could be zero, 

The moments of oppor- 
tunity will not be obvi- 
ous. They . . . will call 
for some self-fulfilling 
leadership. Institutional 
policy-makers will have 
to assess not only the 
climate created by exist- 
ing policies, and existing 
levels of support, but 
also the likely effects of 
their own actions. 

though of course when the encroachment is zero, and gold 
OA mandates are harmless, then gold OA mandates would 
also be unnecessary. 

3. Today, faculty voting for a rights -retention OA 
mandate want a waiver option, and when the option is 
available their votes tend to be overwhelming or unani- 
mous. But there are several circumstances that might 
make it attractive for faculty to abolish waiver options or 
make waivers harder to obtain. One is a shift in faculty per- 
spective that makes access to research more urgent than 
indulging publishers who erect access barriers. Another 
is a significant rise in publisher acceptance of green OA, 
which gives virtually all authors — rather than just most — 
blanket permission for green OA. In the first case, faculty 
might "vote with their submissions" and steer clear of pub- 
lishers who don't allow author-initiated green OA. In the 
second case, faculty would virtually never encounter such 
publishers. In the first case, they'd seldom want waivers, 
and the second they'd seldom need waivers. 

It's understandable that green gratis mandates are 
spreading faster than green libre mandates, that green 
mandates in general are spreading faster than gold man- 
dates, and that rights-retention policies with waiver op- 
tions are spreading faster than rights-retention policies 
without waivers. However, there is modest growth on one 
of these fronts: green libre mandates. 20 

The case against these three kinds of OA policy is 
time-sensitive, not permanent. It's circumstantial, and 
circumstances are changing. But the strategy for insti- 
tutions wanting to remove access barriers to research is 
unchanging: they should adopt the strongest policies they 
can today and watch for the moment when they could 
strengthen them. 

As researchers become more familiar with OA, as more 
institutions adopt OA policies, as more new literature is 
covered by strong OA policies, as more toll-access journals 
convert to OA, as more toll-access journals accommodate 
OA mandates without converting, and even as more OA 
journals shift from gratis to libre, institutions will be able 
strengthen their OA policies without increasing publisher- 
controlled rejection rates or author-controlled waiver rates. 
They should watch the shifting balance of power and seize 
opportunities to strengthen their policies. 

The moments of opportunity will not be obvious. They 
will not be highlighted by objective evidence alone and will 
call for some self-fulfilling leadership. Institutional policy- 
makers will have to assess not only the climate created by 
existing policies, and existing levels of support, but also 
the likely effects of their own actions. Every strong, new 
policy increases the likelihood of publisher accommoda- 
tion, and when enough universities and funders have 
policies, all publishers will have to accommodate them. In 
that sense, every strong new policy creates some of the 


conditions of its own success. Every institution adopting a 
new policy brings about OA for the research it controls and 
makes the way easier for other institutions behind it. Like 
many other policy issues, this is one on which it is easier to 
follow than to lead, and we already have a growing number 
of leaders. A critical mass is growing and every policy is an 
implicit invitation to other institutions to gain strength 
through common purpose and help accelerate publisher 


As we saw in chapter 1, any kind of content can in principle 
be OA. Any kind of content can be digitized, and any kind 
of digital content can be put online without price or per- 
mission barriers. In that sense, the potential scope of OA 
is universal. Hence, instead of saying that OA applies to 
some categories or genres and not to others, it's better to 
say that some categories are easier and some harder. 

OA is not limited to the sciences, where it is known 
best and moving fastest, but extends to the arts and hu- 
manities. It's not limited to research created in developed 
countries, where it is most voluminous, but includes re- 
search from developing countries. (Nor, conversely, is it 
limited to research from developing countries, where the 
need is most pressing.) It's not limited to publicly funded 
research, where the argument is almost universally ac- 
cepted, but includes privately funded and unfunded re- 
search. It's not limited to present and future publications, 

where most policies focus, but includes past publications. 
It's not limited to born-digital work, where the technical 
barriers are lowest, but includes work digitized from print, 
microfiche, film, and other media. It's not limited to text, 
but includes data, audio, video, multimedia, and execut- 
able code. 

There are serious, practical, successful campaigns to 
provide OA to the many kinds of content useful to scholars, 

• peer-reviewed research articles 

• unrefereed preprints destined to be peer-reviewed re- 
search articles 

• theses and dissertations 

• research data 

• government data 

• source code 

• conference presentations (texts, slides, audio, video) 

• scholarly monographs 

• textbooks 

• novels, stories, plays, and poetry 

• newspapers 


• archival records and manuscripts 

• images (artworks, photographs, diagrams, maps) 

• teaching and learning materials ("open education re- 
sources" and "open courseware") 

• digitized print works (some in the public domain, some 
still under copyright) 

For some of these categories, such as data and source 
code, we need OA to facilitate the testing and replication 
of scientific experiments. For others, such as data, images, 
and digitized work from other media, we need OA in or- 
der to give readers the same chance to analyze the primary 
materials that the authors had. For others, such as articles, 
monographs, dissertations, and conference presentations, 
we need OA simply to share results and analysis with ev- 
eryone who might benefit from them. 

A larger book could devote sections to each category. 
Here I focus on just a few. 

5.1 Preprints, Postprints, and Peer Review 1 

Throughout most of its history, newcomers to OA as- 
sumed that the whole idea was to bypass peer review. That 
assumption was false and harmful, and we've made good 

progress in correcting it. The purpose of OA is to remove 
access barriers, not quality filters. Today many peer- 
reviewed OA journals are recognized for their excellence, 
many excellent peer-reviewed toll-access journal publish- 
ers are experimenting with OA, and green OA for peer- 
reviewed articles is growing rapidly. Unfortunately many 
newcomers unaware of these developments still assume 
that the purpose of OA is to bypass peer review. Some of 
them deplore the prospect, some rejoice in it, and their 
passion spreads the misinformation even farther. 

All the public statements in support of OA stress the 
importance of peer review. Most of the enthusiasm for OA 
is enthusiasm for OA to peer-reviewed literature. At the 
same time, we can acknowledge that many of the people 
working hard for this goal are simultaneously exploring 
new forms of scholarly communication that exist outside 
the peer-review system, such as preprint exchanges, blogs, 
wikis, databases, discussion forums, and social media. 

In OA lingo, a "preprint" is any version of an article 
prior to peer review, such as a draft circulating among col- 
leagues or the version submitted to a journal. A "postprint" 
is any version approved by peer review. The scope of green 
OA deliberately extends to both preprints and postprints, 
just as the function of gold OA deliberately includes peer 
review. 2 

We could say that OA preprint initiatives focus on by- 
passing peer review. But it would be more accurate to say 


In OA lingo, a "preprint" 
is any version of an arti- 
cle prior to peer review, 
such as a draft circulating 
among colleagues or 
the version submitted to 
a journal. A "postprint" 
is any version approved 
by peer review. 

that they focus on OA for works destined for peer review 
but not yet peer reviewed. Preprint exchanges didn't arise 
because they bypass peer review but because they bypass 
delay They make new work known more quickly to people 
in the field, creating new and earlier opportunities for ci- 
tation, discussion, verification, and collaboration. How 
quickly? They make new work public the minute that au- 
thors are ready to make it public. 

OA preprints offer obvious reader-side benefits to 
those tracking new developments. But this may be a case 
where the author-side benefits swamp the reader-side 
benefits. Preprint exchanges give authors the earliest pos- 
sible time stamp to mark their priority over others work- 
ing on the same problem. (Historical aside: It's likely that 
in the seventeenth century, journals superseded books as 
the primary literature of science precisely because they 
were faster than books in giving authors an authoritative 
public time stamp.) 

Preprint exchanges existedbefore the internet, but OA 
makes them faster, larger, more useful, and more widely 
read. Despite these advantages, however, preprint ex- 
changes don't represent the whole OA movement or even 
the whole green OA movement. On the contrary, most 
green OA and most OA overall focuses on peer-reviewed 

As soon as scholars had digital networks to connect 
peers together, they began using them to tinker with 


peer review. Can we use networks to find good referees, 
or to gather, share, and weigh their comments? Can we 
use networks to implement traditional models of peer 
review more quickly or effectively? Can we use networks 
to do better than the traditional models? Many scholars 
answer "yes" to some or all of these questions, and many 
of those saying "yes" also support OA. One effect is a cre- 
ative and long-overdue efflorescence of experiments with 
new forms of peer review. Another effect, however, is the 
false perception that OA entails peer-review reform. For 
example, many people believe that OA requires a certain 
kind of peer review, favors some kinds of peer review and 
disfavors others, can't proceed until we agree on the best 
form of peer review, or benefits only those who support 
certain kinds of peer-review reforms. All untrue. 

OA is compatible with every kind of peer review, from 
the most traditional and conservative to the most net- 
worked and innovative. Some OA journals deliberately 
adopt traditional models of peer review, in order to tweak 
just the access variable of scholarly journals. Some deliber- 
ately use very new models, in order to push the evolution 
of peer review. OA is a kind of access, not a kind of editorial 
policy. It's not intrinsically tied to any particular model of 
peer review any more than it's intrinsically tied to any par- 
ticular business model or method of digital preservation. 

With one exception, achieving OA and reforming peer 
review are independent projects. That is, we can achieve 

OA without reforming peer review, and we can reform peer 
review without achieving OA. The exception is that some 
new forms of peer review presuppose OA. 

For example, open review makes submissions OA, be- 
fore or after some prepublication review, and invites com- 
munity comments. Some open-review journals will use 
those comments to decide whether to accept the article for 
formal publication, and others will already have accepted 
the article and use the community comments to comple- 
ment or carry forward the quality evaluation started by 
the journal. Open review requires OA, but OA does not 
require open review. 

Peer review does not depend on the price or medium 
of a journal. Nor does the value, rigor, or integrity of peer 
review. We know that peer review at OA journals can be as 
rigorous and honest as peer review at the best toll-access 
journals because it can use the same procedures, the same 
standards, and even the same people (editors and refer- 
ees) as the best toll-access journals. We see this whenever 
toll-access journals convert to OA without changing their 
methods or personnel. 

5.2 Theses and Dissertations 3 

Theses and dissertations are the most useful kinds of in- 
visible scholarship and the most invisible kinds of useful 

104 CHAPTER 5 

scholarship. Because of their high quality and low visibility, 
the access problem is worth solving. 

Fortunately OA for electronic theses and dissertations 
(ETDs) is easier than for any other kind of research litera- 
ture. Authors have not yet transferred rights to a publisher, 
no publisher permissions are needed, no publisher fears 
need be answered, and no publisher negotiations slow 
things down or make the outcome uncertain. Virtually all 
theses and dissertations are now born digital, and insti- 
tutions expecting electronic submission generally provide 
OA, the reverse of the default for journal publishers. 

The chief obstacle seems to be author fear that mak- 
ing a thesis or dissertation OA will reduce the odds that a 
journal will publish an article-length version. While these 
fears are sometimes justified, the evidence suggests that 
in most cases they are not. 4 

Universities expecting OA for ETDs teach the next 
generation of scholars how easy OA is to provide, how ben- 
eficial it is, and how routine it can be. They help cultivate 
lifelong habits of self-archiving. And they elicit better work. 
By giving authors a foreseeable, real audience beyond the 
dissertation committee, an OA policy strengthens existing 
incentives to do rigorous, original work. 

If a university requires theses and dissertations to be 
new and significant works of scholarship, then it ought 
to expect them to be made public, just as it expects new 
and significant scholarship by faculty to be made public. 

Sharing theses and dissertations that meet the school's 
high standard reflects well on the institution and benefits 
other researchers in the field. The university mission to 
advance research by young scholars has two steps, not one. 
First, help students produce good work, and then help oth- 
ers find, use, and build on that good work. 

5.3 Books 5 

The OA movement focuses on journal articles because 
journals don't pay authors for their articles. This frees ar- 
ticle authors to consent to OA without losing money. By 
contrast, book authors either earn royalties or hope to 
earn royalties. 

Because the line between royalty-free and royalty-pro- 
ducing literature is bright (and life is short), many OA ac- 
tivists focus exclusively on journal articles and leave books 
aside. I recommend a different tactic: treat journal articles 
as low-hanging fruit, but treat books as higher-hanging 
fruit rather than forbidden fruit. There are even reasons 
to think that OA for some kinds of books is easier to attain 
than OA for journal articles. 

The scope of OA should be determined by author con- 
sent, not genre. Imagine an author of a journal article who 
withholds consent to OA. The economic door is open but 


the author is not walking through it. This helps us see that 
relinquishing revenue is only relevant when it leads to 
consent, and consent suffices whether or not it's based on 
relinquishing revenue. It follows that if authors of royalty- 
producing genres, like books, consent to OA, then we'll 
have the same basis for OA to books that we have for OA 
to articles. 

Even if books are higher-hanging fruit, they're not 
out of reach. Two arguments are increasingly successful in 
persuading book authors to consent to OA. 

1. Royalties on most scholarly monographs range be- 
tween zero and meager. If your royalties are better than 
that, congratulations. (I've earned book royalties; I'm 
grateful for them, and I wish all royalty-earning authors 
success.) The case for OA doesn't ask authors to make a 
new sacrifice or leave money on the table. It merely asks 
them to weigh the risk to their royalties against the ben- 
efit of OA, primarily the benefit of a larger audience and 
greater impact. For many book authors, the benefit will 
outweigh the risk. The benefit is large and the realistic 
prospect of royalties is low. 

2. There is growing evidence that for some kinds of books, 
full-text OA editions boost the net sales of the priced, 
printed editions. OA may increase royalties rather than 
decrease them. 

The first argument says that even if OA puts royalties 
at risk, the benefits might outweigh the risks. The second 
argument says that OA might not reduce royalties at all, 
and that conventional publication without an OA edition 
might be the greater risk. Both say, in effect, that authors 
should be empirical and realistic about this. Don't presume 
that your royalties will be high when there's evidence they 
will be low, and don't presume that OA will kill sales when 
there's evidence it could boost them. 

Both arguments apply to authors, but the second ap- 
plies to publishers as well. When authors have already 
transferred rights — and the OA decision — to a publisher, 
then the case rests on the second argument. A growing 
number of academic book publishers are either persuaded 
or so intrigued that they're experimenting. 6 

Many book authors want a print edition, badly. But the 
second argument is not only compatible with print but de- 
pends on print. The model is to give away the OA edition 
and sell a print edition, usually via print-on-demand (POD) 7 

Why would anyone buy a print book when the full text 
is OA? The answer is that many people don't want to read 
a whole book on a screen or gadget, and don't want to print 
out a whole book on their printer. They use OA editions for 
searching and sampling. When they discover a book that 
piques their curiosity or meets their personal standards of 
relevance and quality, they'll buy a copy. Or, many of them 
will buy a copy. 


Evidence has been growing for about a decade that 
this phenomenon works for some books, or some kinds 
of books, even if it doesn't work for others. For example, 
it seems to work for books like novels and monographs, 
which readers want to read from beginning to end, or 
which they want to have on their shelves. It doesn't seem 
to work for books like encyclopedias, from which readers 
usually want just an occasional snippet. 

One problem is running a controlled experiment, 
since we can't publish the same book with and without an 
OA edition to compare the sales. (If we publish a book ini- 
tially without an OA edition and later add an OA edition, 
the time lag itself could affect sales.) Another variable is 
that ebook readers are becoming more and more consumer 
friendly. If the "net boost to sales" phenomenon is real, 
and if it depends on the ergonomic discomforts of read- 
ing digital books, then better gadgets may make the phe- 
nomenon disappear. If the net-boost phenomenon didn't 
depend on ergonomic hurdles to digital reading, or didn't 
depend entirely on them, then it might survive any sort of 
technological advances. There's a lot of experimenting still 
to do, and fortunately or unfortunately it must be done in 
a fast-changing environment. 8 

The U.S. National Academies Press began publishing 
full-text OA editions of its monographs alongside priced, 
printed editions in March 1994, which is ancient his- 
tory in internet time. Over the years Michael Jensen, its 

director of web communications and director of publish- 
ing technologies, has published a series of articles showing 
that the OA editions increased the sales of the toll-access 
editions. 9 

In February 2007, the American Association of Univer- 
sity Presses issued a Statement on Open Access in which 
it called for experiments with OA monographs and mixed 
OA/toll-access business models. By May 2011, the AAUP re- 
ported that 17 member presses, or 24 percent of its survey 
respondents, were already publishing full-text OA books. 10 

The question isn't whether some people will read the 
OA edition without buying the toll-access edition. Some 
will. The question isn't even whether more readers of the 
OA edition will buy the toll-access edition than not buy it. 
The question is whether more readers of the OA edition 
will buy the toll-access edition than would have bought the 
toll-access edition without the OA edition to alert them 
to its existence and help them evaluate its relevance and 
quality. If there are enough OA-inspired buyers, then it 
doesn't matter that there are also plenty of OA-satisfied 

Book authors and publishers who are still nervous 
could consent to delayed OA and release the OA edition 
only after six months or a year. During the time when the 
monograph is toll-access only, they could still provide OA 
excerpts and metadata to help readers and potential buy- 
ers find the book and start to assess it. 


Even the youngest scholars today grew up in a world 
in which there were more print books in the average uni- 
versity library than gratis OA books online. But that ratio 
reversed around 2006, give or take. Today there are many 
more gratis OA books online than print books in the aver- 
age academic library, and we're steaming toward the next 
crossover point when there will be many more gratis OA 
books online than print books in the world's largest librar- 
ies, academic or not. 

A few years ago, those of us who focus on OA to jour- 
nal literature were sure that journal articles were lower- 
hanging fruit than any kind of print books, including 
public-domain books. But we were wrong. There are still 
good reasons to make journal literature the strategic fo- 
cus of the OA movement, and we're still making good 
progress on that front. But the lesson of the fast-moving 
book-scanning projects is that misunderstanding, inertia, 
and permission are more serious problems than digitiza- 
tion. The permission problem is solved for public-domain 
books. Digitizing them by the millions is a titanic technical 
undertaking, but it turns out to be a smaller problem than 
getting millions of copyrighted articles into OA journals 
or OA repositories, even when they're written by authors 
who can consent to OA without losing revenue. OA for new 
journal articles faces publisher resistance, print-era incen- 
tives, and misunderstandings in every category of stake- 

holders, including authors and publishers. As the late Jim 
Gray used to say, "May all your problems be technical." 

5.4 Access to What? 11 

Not all the literature that researchers want to find, retrieve, 
and read should be called knowledge. We want access to 
serious proposals for knowledge even if they turn out to be 
false or incomplete. We want access to serious hypotheses 
even if we're still testing them and debating their merits. 
We want access to the data and analysis offered in support 
of the claims we're evaluating. We want access to all the 
arguments, evidence, and discussion. We want access to 
everything that could help us decide what to call knowl- 
edge, not just to the results that we agree to call knowledge. 
If access depended on the outcome of debate and inquiry, 
then access could not contribute to debate and inquiry. 

We don't have a good name for this category larger 
than knowledge, but here I'll just call it research. Among 
other things, research includes knowledge and knowledge 
claims or proposals, hypotheses and conjectures, argu- 
ments and analysis, evidence and data, algorithms and 
methods, evaluation and interpretation, debate and dis- 
cussion, criticism and dissent, summary and review. OA to 
research should be OA to the whole shebang. Inquiry and 
research suffer when we have access to anything less. 


We want access to all the 
arguments, evidence, 
and discussion. We want 
access to everything that 
could help us decide 
what to call knowledge, 
not just to the results 
that we agree to call 
knowledge. If access de- 
pended on the outcome 
of debate and inquiry, 
then access could not 
contribute to debate and 

Some people call the journal literature the "minutes" 
of science, as if it were just a summary. But it's more than 
that. If the minutes of a meeting summarize a discussion, 
the journal literature is a large part of the discussion itself. 
Moreover, in an age of conferences, preprint servers, blogs, 
wikis, databases, listservs, and email, the journal literature 
is not the whole discussion. Wikipedia aspires to provide 
OA to a summary of knowledge, and (wisely) refuses to ac- 
cept original research. But the larger OA movement wants 
OA to knowledge and original research themselves, as well 
as the full discussion about what we know and what we 
don't. It wants OA to the primary and secondary sources 
where knowledge is taking shape through a messy process 
that is neither consistent (as it works through the clash 
of conflicting hypotheses) nor stable (as it discards weak 
claims and considers new ones that appear stronger). The 
messiness and instability are properties of a discussion, 
not properties of the minutes of a discussion. The jour- 
nal literature isn't just a report on the process but a major 
channel of the process itself. And not incidentally, OA is 
valuable not just for making the process public but for fa- 
cilitating the process and making it more effective, expedi- 
tious, transparent, and global. 12 

To benefit from someone's research, we need access to 
it, and for this purpose it doesn't matter whether the re- 
search is in the sciences or humanities. We need access to 
medical or physical research before we can use it to tackle 


a cure for malaria or devise a more efficient solar panel. We 
need access to an earthquake prediction before we can use 
it to plan emergency responses. 13 And we need access to 
literary and philosophical research in order to understand 
a difficult passage in Homer or the strength of a response 
to epistemological skepticism. 

For this kind of utility, the relevant comparison is 
not between pure and applied research or between the 
sciences and humanities. The relevant comparison is be- 
tween any kind of research when OA and the same kind 
of research when locked behind price and permission bar- 
riers. Whether a given line of research serves wellness or 
wisdom, energy or enlightenment, protein synthesis or 
public safety, OA helps it serve those purposes faster, bet- 
ter, and more universally. 

5.5 Access for Whom? 

Answer: human beings and machines. 

5.5.1 OA for Lay Readers 15 

Some have opposed OA on the ground that not everyone 
needs it, which is a little like opposing the development 
of a safe and effective new medicine on the ground that 
not every one needs it. It's easy to agree that not everyone 

needs it. But in the case of OA, there's no easy way to iden- 
tify those who do and those who don't. In addition, there's 
no easy way, and no reason, to deliver it only to those who 
need it and deny it to everyone else. 

OA allows us to provide access to everyone who cares 
to have access, without patronizing guesswork about who 
really wants it, who really deserves it, and who would re- 
ally benefit from it. Access for everyone with an internet 
connection helps authors, by enlarging their audience and 
impact, and helps readers who want access and who might 
have been excluded by central planners trying to decide in 
advance whom to enfranchise. The idea is to stop thinking 
of knowledge as a commodity to meter out to deserving 
customers, and to start thinking of it as a public good, es- 
pecially when it is given away by its authors, funded with 
public money, or both. 14 

Some lobbyists for toll-access publishers argue, in 
good faith or bad, that the goal of OA is to bring access 
to lay readers. This sets up their counter-argument that 
lay readers don't care to read cutting-edge research and 
wouldn't understand it if they tried. Some publishers go a 
step further and argue that access to research would harm 
lay readers. 16 

This is a two-step argument, that OA is primarily for 
lay readers and that lay readers don't need it. Each step is 
false. The first step overlooks the unmet demand for ac- 
cess by professional researchers, as if all professionals who 


wanted access already had it, and the second overlooks the 
unmet demand for access by lay readers, as if lay readers 
had no use for access. 

One reason to think the first step is put forward in 
bad faith is that it overlooks the very conspicuous fact that 
the OA movement is driven by researchers who are em- 
phatic about wanting the benefits of OA for themselves. It 
also overlooks the evidence of wide and widespread access 
gaps even for professional researchers. (See section 2.1 on 

The problem with the second step is presumption. 
How does anyone know in advance the level of demand for 
peer-reviewed research among lay readers? When peer-re- 
viewed literature is toll-access and expensive, then lack of 
access by lay readers and consumers doesn't show lack of 
demand, any more than lack of access to Fort Knox shows 
lack of demand for gold. We have to remove access barriers 
before we can distinguish lack of access from lack of inter- 
est. The experiment has been done, more than once. When 
the U.S. National Library of Medicine converted to OA in 
2004, for example, visitors to its web site increased more 
than a hundredfold. 17 

A common related argument is that lay readers surf- 
ing the internet are easily misled by unsupported claims, 
refuted theories, anecdotal evidence, and quack remedies. 
Even if true, however, it's an argument for rather than 
against expanding online access to peer-reviewed research. 

If we're really worried about online dreck, we should dilute 
it with high-quality research rather than leave the dreck 
unchallenged and uncorrected. 

Many of us medical nonprofessionals — who may be pro- 
fessionals in another field — want access to medical research 
in order to read about our own conditions or the conditions 
of family members. But even if few fall into that category, 
most of us still want access for our doctors, nurses, and 
hospitals. We still want access for the nonprofit advocacy 
organizations working on our behalf, such as the AIDS Vac- 
cine Advocacy Coalition, the Cystinosis Research Network, 
or the Spina Bifida Association of America. And in turn, doc- 
tors, nurses, hospitals, and advocacy organizations want ac- 
cess for laboratory researchers. As I argued earlier (section 
1.2), OA benefits researchers directly and benefits everyone 
else indirectly by benefiting researchers. 18 

A May 2006 Harris poll showed that an overwhelm- 
ing majority of Americans wanted OA for publicly funded 
research. 83 percent wanted it for their doctors and 82 
percent wanted it for everyone. 81 percent said it would 
help medical patients and their families cope with chronic 
illness and disability. 62 percent said it would speed up 
the discovery of new cures. For each poll question, a fairly 
large percentage of respondents checked "neither agree 
nor disagree" (between 13 and 30 percent), which meant 
that only tiny minorities disagreed with the OA proposi- 
tions. Only 3 percent didn't want OA for their doctors, 4 


percent didn't want it for themselves, and 5 percent didn't 
think it would help patients or their families. 19 

The ratio of professional to lay readers of peer-re- 
viewed research undoubtedly varies from field to field. But 
for the purpose of OA policy, it doesn't matter what the 
ratio is in any field. What matters is that neither group 
has sufficient access today, when most research journals 
are toll-access. Professional researchers don't have suffi- 
cient access through their institutional libraries because 
subscription prices are rising faster than library budgets, 
even at the wealthiest libraries in the world. Motivated lay 
readers don't have sufficient access because few public li- 
braries subscribe to any peer-reviewed research journals, 
and none to the full range. 20 

The argument against access for lay readers suffers 
from more than false assumptions about unmet demand. 
Either it concedes or doesn't concede that OA is desirable 
for professional researchers. If it doesn't, then it should 
argue first against the strongest opponent and try to make 
the case against OA for professionals. But if it does concede 
that OA for professionals is a good idea, then it wants to 
build a selection system for deciding who deserves access, 
and an authentication system for sorting the sheep from 
the goats. Part of the beauty of OA is that providing access 
to everyone is cheaper and easier than providing access to 
some and blocking access to others. We should only raise 
costs and pay for the apparatus of exclusion when there's a 
very good reason to do so. 21 

5.5.2 OA for Machines 22 

We also want access for machines. I don't mean the fu- 
turistic altruism in which kindly humans want to help 
curious machines answer their own questions. I mean 
something more selfish. We're well into the era in which 
serious research is mediated by sophisticated software. If 
our machines don't have access, then we don't have access. 
Moreover, if we can't get access for our machines, then 
we lose a momentous opportunity to enhance access with 

Think about the size of the body of literature to which 
you have access, online and off. Now think realistically 
about the subset to which you'd have practical access if you 
couldn't use search engines, or if search engines couldn't 
index the literature you needed. 

Information overload didn't start with the internet. 
The internet does vastly increase the volume of work to 
which we have access, but at the same time it vastly in- 
creases our ability to find what we need. We zero in on the 
pieces that deserve our limited time with the aid of pow- 
erful software, or more precisely, powerful software with 
access. Software helps us learn what exists, what's new, 
what's relevant, what others find relevant, and what oth- 
ers are saying about it. Without these tools, we couldn't 
cope with information overload. Or we'd have to redefine 
"coping" as artificially reducing the range of work we are al- 
lowed to consider, investigate, read, or retrieve. 23 


Some publishers have seriously argued that high toll- 
access journal prices and limited library budgets help us 
cope with information overload, as if the literature we 
can't afford always coincides with the literature we don't 
need. But of course much that is relevant to our projects is 
unaffordable to our libraries. If any problems are intrinsic 
to a very large and fast-growing, accessible corpus of lit- 
erature, they don't arise from size itself, or size alone, but 
from limitations on our discovery tools. With OA and suf- 
ficiently powerful tools, we could always find and retrieve 
what we needed. Without sufficiently powerful tools, we 
could not. Replacing OA with high-priced toll access would 
only add new obstacles to research, even if it simultane- 
ously made the accessible corpus small enough for weaker 
discovery tools to master. In Clay Shirky's concise formu- 
lation, the real problem is not information overload but 
filter failure. 24 

OA is itself a spectacular inducement for software de- 
velopers to create useful tools to filter what we can find. 
As soon as the tools are finished, they apply to a free, use- 
ful, and fast-growing body of online literature. Conversely, 
useful tools optimized for OA literature create powerful 
incentives for authors and publishers to open up their 
work. As soon as their work is OA, a vast array of power- 
ful tools make it more visible and useful. In the early days 
of OA, shortages on each side created a vicious circle: the 
small quantity of OA literature provided little incentive 

to develop new tools optimized for making it more visible 
and useful, and the dearth of powerful tools provided little 
extra incentive to make new work OA. But today a critical 
mass of OA literature invites the development of useful 
tools, and a critical mass of useful tools gives authors and 
publishers another set of reasons to make their work OA. 

All digital literature, OA or toll access, is machine- 
readable and supports new and useful kinds of process- 
ing. But toll-access literature minimizes that opportunity 
by shrinking the set of inputs with access fees, password 
barriers, copyright restrictions, and software locks. By re- 
moving price and permission barriers, OA maximizes this 
opportunity and spawns an ecosystem of tools for search- 
ing, indexing, mining, summarizing, translating, query- 
ing, linking, recommending, alerting, mashing-up, and 
other kinds of processing, not to mention myriad forms of 
crunching and connecting that we can't even imagine to- 
day. One bedrock purpose of OA is to give these research- 
enhancing, utility-amplifying tools the widest possible 
scope of operation. 

In this sense, the ultimate promise of OA is not to pro- 
vide free online texts for human reading, even if that is the 
highest-value end use. The ultimate promise of OA is to 
provide free online data for software acting as the anten- 
nae, prosthetic eyeballs, research assistants, and personal 
librarians of all serious researchers. 


Opening research literature for human users also 
opens it for software to crunch the literature for the ben- 
efit of human users. We can even hope that OA itself will 
soon be old hat, taken for granted by a new generation of 
tools and services that depend on it. As those tools and 
services come along, they will be the hot story and they 
will deserve to be. Technologists will note that they all de- 
pend on OA, and historians will note that OA itself was not 
easily won. 25 


OA could be implemented badly so that it infringes copy- 
right. 1 But so could conventional publishing. Both OA and 
toll access have long since discovered the same recipe for 
avoiding copyright problems: For sufficiently old works, 
rely on the public domain, and for newer works under copy- 
right, rely on copyright-holder consent. This shouldn't be 
surprising. Toll-access publishers don't have a shortcut to 
copyright compliance just because they charge money for 
access, and OA publishers don't face an extra hurdle to 
copyright compliance just because they don't charge for 
access. Copyright protects the revenue streams of those 
who choose to charge for access but doesn't compel anyone 
to charge for access. 

When researchers publish in OA journals, the permis- 
sion problem is easily solved. Either the author retains the 
key rights and the publisher obtains the author's permis- 
sion, or the author transfers the key rights to the publisher 
and the publisher uses them to authorize OA. 

Toll-access journals don't make their articles OA, of 
course, but more often than not they give blanket permis- 
sion for authors to make their peer-reviewed manuscripts 
green OA. (See section 3.1 on green OA.) 

When authors transfer all rights to the publisher, then 
they also transfer the OA decision to the publisher. When 
the publisher doesn't already allow green OA, then authors 
must ask permission to make their work OA. However, 
many publishers who don't give blanket permission for 
green OA will agree to case-by-case requests. (For exam- 
ple, before Elsevier started giving blanket permission in 
2004, its policy was to agree to essentially all case-by-case 

When authors submit work to toll-access journals but 
retain the right to authorize OA, then the OA decision be- 
longs to them. Publishers may refuse to publish their work, 
of course, but they seldom do so merely because of rights 
retention when authors are following a policy of their 
funder or employer. As noted (in chapter 4 on policies), 
the NIH has one of the strongest rights-retention OA poli- 
cies anywhere, and to date not a single surveyed publisher 
refuses to publish NIH-funded authors on account of its 
mandatory OA policy 2 

Publishers who refuse to publish rights-retaining au- 
thors are not asserting copyright. They are asserting an 
independent, background right to refuse to publish any 
work for any reason. (I support this right and would never 


Authors who retain 
rights don't violate 
rights belonging to 
publishers; they merely 
prevent publishers from 
acquiring those rights 
in the first place. 

want to see publishers lose it.) Authors who retain rights 
don't violate rights belonging to publishers; they merely 
prevent publishers from acquiring those rights in the first 
place. When rights-retaining authors make their work OA, 
publishers can't complain that OA infringes a right they 
possess, only that it would infringe a right they wished they 
possessed. Publishers who face rights retention face hard 
bargaining, not infringement. Publishers still have a rem- 
edy, but it's the remedy to hard bargaining (just say no), not 
the remedy to infringement (sue or threaten to sue). 

We can see this from another angle. If the NIH policy 
violated copyright law, publishers would have sued. But in- 
stead, their strongest response has been to support a bill 
amending U.S. copyright law to make NIH-style policies 
unlawful. That's a concession that the NIH policy is lawful 
under current law. In that sense, strong rights-retention 
policies are not only lawful but battle-tested. 3 

Of course authors may retain rights on their own, even 
when not required to do so by a funder or university policy. 
But when authors stand alone, they have very little bar- 
gaining power against publishers who demand the rights 
as a condition of publication. One of the practical benefits 
of strong rights-retention policies is that they amplify the 
author's bargaining power and tend to elicit publisher ac- 

When authors retain the right to authorize OA, and use 
that right to authorize OA, then the resulting OA is autho- 

128 CHAPTER 6 

rized by the copyright holder. The fact that the decision is 
from the author rather than the publisher makes it uncon- 
ventional, but not unlawful, insufficient, or legally dubious. 

Authors who retain the right to authorize OA may still 
transfer all other rights to publishers, and typically do. In 
these cases, publishers may not acquire all the rights they 
want, or all the rights they formerly acquired. But they ac- 
quire all the rights they need for publishing, and they have 
undiminished power to enforce the rights they acquire. 

This solution works because funders and universi- 
ties are upstream from publishers. In the case of funders, 
grantees sign their funding contracts before they sign 
their publishing contracts. In the case of universities, fac- 
ulty members vote to authorize university-hosted OA to 
their future publications before they sign their future pub- 
lishing contracts. 

OA journals obtain the needed permission through a 
publishing contract with the author, just as conventional 
journals do. But because OA journals aren't trying to pro- 
tect sales revenue, they needn't prohibit copying and redis- 
tribution. On the contrary, OA journals share the author's 
interest in maximizing impact by maximizing distribution 
and reuse rights. Hence, OA journals may request fewer 
rights from authors and allow more uses than toll-access 
journals do. 4 

Conventional wisdom holds that authors need copy- 
right to give them an incentive to write. Others can debate 


whether this is true for nonacademic authors like novelists 
and journalists. (L. Ray Patterson liked to point out that 
it wasn't true for Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Milton. 5 ) But 
there are two reasons why it's simply false for authors of 
research articles. First, authors of research articles are not 
paid. When money is even part of an author's incentive, 
copyright fortifies the incentive by giving authors a tem- 
porary monopoly on their work and the revenue stream 
arising from it. Without copyright, unauthorized copies 
might kill the market for authorized copies and reduce 
sales. But all this is irrelevant to authors who write for im- 
pact, not for money, and who voluntarily forgo royalties. 

Second, authors of research articles traditionally 
transferred copyright to publishers. Hence, copyrights on 
research articles traditionally protected publishers, not 
authors. If the conventional wisdom about incentives 
were true for research articles, then transferring the rights 
to publishers would have diminished author productivity. 
But that did not happen. On the contrary, scholars have 
always had independent incentives to write journal arti- 
cles, such as knowledge sharing, reputation building, and 
creating a portfolio for promotion and tenure. They never 
expected revenue from their articles, never needed a tem- 
porary monopoly on that revenue, rarely even knew what 
the revenue was, and never wrote for the purpose of gen- 
erating revenue for the publishers who actually owned the 
copyrights in their work. 


Conventional wisdom 
holds that authors 
need copyright to give 
them an incentive to 
write. Others can debate 
whether this is true for 
nonacademic authors 
like novelists and 
journalists. (L. Ray Pat- 
terson liked to point out 
that it wasn't true for 
Chaucer, Shakespeare, 
or Milton.) 

Because scholars don't earn royalties on their research 
articles, they would not be hurt by dramatic copyright 
reforms designed to restore balance between copyright 
holders and users — not that such reforms are likely any 
time soon. Publishers who pretend to speak for authors 
in defending the current imbalance in copyright law speak 
for authors of royalty-producing literature. Authors of roy- 
alty-free literature have very different interests. 



Many publishers who oppose OA concede that OA is better 
for research and researchers than toll access. 1 They merely 
object that we can't pay for it. But we can pay for it. 

The first major study of the economic impact of OA 
policies was conducted by John Houghton and Peter Shee- 
han in 2006. Using conservative estimates that a nation's 
gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) 
brings social returns of 50 percent, and that OA increases 
access and efficiency by 5 percent, Houghton and Shee- 
han calculated that a transition to OA would not only pay 
for itself, but add $1.7 billion/year to the UK economy and 
$16 billion/year to the U.S. economy. A later study focus- 
ing on Australia used the more conservative estimate that 
GERD brings social returns of only 25 percent, but still 
found that the bottom-line economic benefits of OA for 
publicly funded research were 51 times greater than the 
costs. 2 

Independent confirmation of Houghton's results came 
in a major study released in April 2011, commissioned by 
the UK Joint Information Systems Committee, Publish- 
ing Research Consortium, Research Information Network, 
Research Libraries UK, and the Wellcome Trust. After 
studying five scenarios for improving research access, it 
concluded that green and gold OA "offer the greatest poten- 
tial to policy-makers in promoting access. Both have posi- 
tive, and potentially high, BCRs [benefit-cost ratios]. . . ." 3 

The same study noted that "the infrastructure for 
Green [OA] has largely already been built" and there- 
fore that "increasing access by this route is especially cost- 
effective. ..." I can add that repositories scale up more 
easily than journals to capture unmet demand, and that 
depositing in a repository costs the depositor nothing. 
For all these reasons, I'll focus in this chapter on how to 
pay for gold OA (journals), not how to pay for green OA 

Before turning to gold OA, however, I should note 
that there are widely varying estimates in the literature on 
what it costs a university to run an institutional repository. 
The divergence reflects the fact that repositories can serve 
many different purposes, and that some repositories serve 
more of them than others. If the minimum purpose is to 
host OA copies of faculty articles, and if faculty deposit 
their own articles, then the cost is minimal. But a reposi- 
tory is a general-purpose tool, and once launched there are 


OA journals pay their bills 
the way broadcast televi- 
sion and radio stations do — 
not through advertising or 
pledge drives, but through 
a simple generalization 
on advertising and pledge 
drives. Those with an 
interest in disseminating 
the content pay the produc- 
tion costs upfront so that 
access can be free of charge 
for everyone with the right 

good reasons for it to take on other responsibilities, such 
as long-term preservation, assisting faculty with digitiza- 
tion, permissions, and deposits, and hosting many other 
sorts of content, such as theses and dissertations, books or 
book chapters, conference proceedings, courseware, cam- 
pus publications, digitized special collections, and admin- 
istrative records. If the average repository is a significant 
expense today, the reason is that the average repository is 
doing significantly more than the minimum. 4 

OA journals pay their bills the way broadcast television 
and radio stations do — not through advertising or pledge 
drives, but through a simple generalization on advertising 
and pledge drives. Those with an interest in disseminat- 
ing the content pay the production costs upfront so that 
access can be free of charge for everyone with the right 
equipment. Elsewhere I've called this the "some pay for all" 
model. 5 

Some OA journals have a subsidy from a university, 
library, foundation, society, museum, or government 
agency. Other OA journals charge a publication fee on ac- 
cepted articles, to be paid by the author or the author's 
sponsor (employer or funder). The party paying the sub- 
sidy or fee covers the journal's expenses and readers pay 

OA journals that charge publication fees tend to waive 
them in cases of economic hardship, and journals with in- 
stitutional subsidies tend not to charge publication fees. 


OA journals can diversify their funding and get by on lower 
subsidies, or lower fees, if they also have revenue from 
print editions, advertising, priced add-ons, or auxiliary 
services. Some institutions and consortia arrange fee dis- 
counts, or purchase annual memberships that include fee 
waivers or discounts for all affiliated researchers. 

Models that work well in some fields and nations may 
not work as well in others. No one claims that one size fits 
all. There's still room for creativity in finding ways to pay 
the costs of a peer-reviewed OA journal, and many smart 
and motivated people are exploring different possibilities. 
Journals announce new variations almost every week, and 
we're far from exhausting our cleverness and imagination. 6 

Green OA may suffer from invisibility, but gold OA 
does not. On the contrary, researchers who don't know 
about OA repositories still understand that there are OA 
journals. Sometimes the visibility gap is so large that re- 
searchers, journalists, and policy-makers conclude that all 
OA is gold OA (see section 3.1 on green and gold OA). As 
a result, most researchers who think about the benefits 
of OA think about the benefits of gold OA. Here, at least, 
the news is good. The most comprehensive survey to date 
shows that an overwhelming 89 percent of researchers 
from all fields believe that OA journals are beneficial to 
their fields. 7 

Apart from the myth that all OA is gold OA, the most 
common myth about gold OA is that all OA journals charge 


"author fees" or use an "author-pays" business model. 
There are three mistakes here. The first is to assume that 
there is only one business model for OA journals, when 
there are many. The second is to assume that charging an 
upfront fee means authors are the ones expected to pay 
it. The third is to assume that all or even most OA jour- 
nals charge upfront fees. In fact, most OA journals (70 
percent) charge no upfront or author-side fees at all. By 


The terms "author fees" and "author pays" are 
specious and damaging. They're false for the 
majority of OA journals, which charge no fees. 
They're also misleading even for fee-based OA 
journals, where nearly nine times out of ten 
the fees are not paid by authors themselves. It's 
more accurate to speak of "publication fees," 
"processing fees," or "author-side fees." The first 
two don't specify the payor, and the third merely 
specifies that the payment comes from the 
author side of the transaction, rather than the 
reader side, without implying that it must come 
from authors themselves. 


contrast, most toll-access journals (75 percent) do charge 
author-side fees. Moreover, even within the minority of 
fee-based OA journals, only 12 percent of those authors 
end up paying the fees out of pocket. Almost 90 percent of 
the time, the fees at fee-based journals are waived or paid 
by sponsors on behalf of authors. 8 

The false beliefs that most OA journals charge author- 
side fees and that most toll-access journals don't have 
caused several kinds of harm. They scare authors away 
from OA journals. They support the misconception that 
gold OA excludes indigent authors. When we add in the 
background myth that all OA is gold OA, this misconcep- 
tion suggests that OA as such — and not just gold OA — ex- 
cludes indigent authors. 

These false beliefs also support the insinuation that 
OA journals are more likely than non-OA journals to com- 
promise on peer review. But if charging author-side fees 
for accepted papers really creates an incentive to lower 
standards, in order to rake in more fees, then most toll- 
access journals are guilty and most OA journals are not. 
In fact, however, when OA journals do charge author-side 
fees, they create firewalls between their financial and edi- 
torial operations. For example, most fee-based OA jour- 
nals will waive their fees in cases of economic hardship, 
and take pains to prevent editors and referees engaged in 
peer review from knowing whether or not an author has 
requested a fee waiver. By contrast, at toll-access journals 


levying author-side page or color charges, editors generally 
know that accepted papers will entail revenue. 9 

The false belief that most OA journals charge author- 
side fees also infects studies in which authors misinform 
survey subjects before surveying them. In effect: "At OA 
journals, authors pay to be published; now let me ask 
you a series of questions about your attitude toward OA 

Finally, this false belief undermines calculations about 
who would bear the financial brunt if we made a general 
transition from toll-access journals to OA journals. A 
handful of studies have calculated that after a general con- 
version of peer-reviewed journals to OA, high-output uni- 
versities would pay more in author-side fees than they pay 
now in subscriptions. These calculations make at least two 
assumptions unjustified by present facts or trends: that all 
OA journals would charge fees, and that all fees would be 
paid by universities. 10 

There are two kinds of OA journals, full and hybrid. 
Full OA journals provide OA to all their research articles. 
Hybrid OA journals provide OA to some and toll-access 
to others, when the choice is the author's rather than the 
editor's. Most hybrid OA journals charge a publication fee 
for the OA option. Authors who can find the money get 
immediate OA, and those who can't or prefer not to, get 
toll access. (Many hybrid OA journals provide OA to all 
their articles after some time period, such as a year.) Some 


hybrid OA journals promise to reduce subscription prices 
in proportion to author uptake of the OA option, that is, 
to charge subscribers only for the toll-access articles. But 
most hybrid journal publishers don't make this promise 
and "double dip" by charging subscription fees and publi- 
cation fees for the same OA articles. 11 

Hybrid OA is very low-risk for publishers. If the OA 
option has low uptake, the publisher loses nothing and 
still has subscription revenue. If it has high uptake, the 
publisher has subscription revenue for the conventional 
articles, publication fees for the OA articles, and some- 
times both at once for the OA articles. Hence, the model 
has spread far and fast. The Professional/Scholarly Pub- 
lishing division of the Association of American Publish- 
ers reported in 2011 that 74 percent of surveyed journals 
offering some form of OA in 2009 offered hybrid OA. At 
the same time, SHERPA listed more than 90 publishers of- 
fering hybrid OA options, including all of the largest pub- 
lishers. Despite its spread, hybrid OA journals do little or 
nothing to help researchers, libraries, or publishers. The 
average rate of uptake for the OA option at hybrid journals 
is just 2 percent. 12 

The chief virtue of hybrid OA journals is that they give 
publishers some firsthand experience with the econom- 
ics and logistics of OA publishing. But the economics are 
artificial, since hybrid OA publishers have no incentive to 
increase author uptake and make the model succeed. The 


publishers always have subscriptions to fall back on. More- 
over, an overwhelming majority of full-OA journals charge 
no publication fees and the overwhelming majority of 
hybrid-OA journals never gain firsthand experience with 
no-fee business models. 13 

A growing number of for-profit OA publishers are 
making profits, and a growing number of nonprofit OA 
publishers are breaking even or making surpluses. Two 
different business models drive these sustainable pub- 
lishing programs. BioMed Central makes profits and the 
Public Library of Science makes surpluses by charging 
publication fees. MedKnow makes profits without charg- 
ing publication fees by selling priced print editions of its 
OA journals. 14 

Fee-based OA journals tend to work best in fields 
where most research is funded, and no-fee journals tend 
to work best in fields and countries where comparatively 
little research is funded. The successes of these two busi- 
ness models give hope that gold OA can be sustainable in 
every discipline. 

Every kind of peer-reviewed journal can become more 
sustainable by reducing costs. Although peer review is 
generally performed by unpaid volunteers, organizing or 
facilitating peer review is an expense. The journal must se- 
lect referees, distribute files to referees, monitor who has 
what, track progress, nag dawdlers, collect comments and 
share them with the right people, facilitate communica- 


tion, distinguish versions, and collect data on acceptances 
and rejections. One powerful way to reduce costs without 
reducing quality is to use free and open-source journal 
management software to automate the clerical tasks on 
this list. 

The leader in this field is Open Journal Systems from 
the Public Knowledge Project, but there are more than a 
dozen other open-source packages. While OJS or other 
open-source software could benefit even toll-access jour- 
nals, their use is concentrated among OA journals. OJS 
alone has more than 9,000 installations (though not all 
are used for managing journals). This is not merely an ex- 
ample of how one openness movement can help another 
but also of how fearing openness can lead conventional 
publishers to forgo financial benefits and leave money on 
the table. 15 

There are reasons to think that OA journals cost less to 
produce than toll-access journals of the same quality. OA 
journals dispense with subscription management (solicit- 
ing, negotiating, tracking, renewing subscribers), dispense 
with digital rights management (authenticating users, 
distinguishing authorized from unauthorized, blocking 
access to unauthorized), eliminate legal fees for licensing 
(drafting, negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing restric- 
tive licenses), and reduce or eliminate marketing. In their 
place they add back little more than the cost of collecting 


publication fees or institutional subsidies. Several studies 
and OA publishers have testified to these lower costs. 16 

We shouldn't count the savings from dropping print, 
since most toll-access journals in the sciences have already 
dropped their print editions and those in the humanities 
are moving in the same direction. 

We should be suspicious when large, venerable, conven- 
tional publishers say that in their experience the economics 
of OA publishing don't work. Print-era publishers retooling 
for digital, and toll-access publishers retooling for OA, will 
inevitably realize smaller savings from OA than lean, mean 
OA start-ups without legacy equipment, personnel, or over- 
head from the age of print and subscriptions. 

About one-quarter of all peer-reviewed journals today 
are OA. Like toll-access journals, some are in the black and 
thriving and some are in the red and struggling. However, 
the full range of OA journals begins to look like a success 
story when we consider that the vast maj or ity of the money 
needed to support peer-reviewed journals is currently tied 
up in subscriptions to conventional journals. OA journals 
have reached their current numbers and quality despite 
the extraordinary squeeze on budgets devoted to the sup- 
port of peer-reviewed journals. 

Even if OA journals had the same production costs as 
toll-access journals, there's enough money in the system to 
pay for peer-reviewed OA journals in every niche where we 
currently have peer-reviewed toll-access journals, and at 


the same level of quality. In fact, there's more than enough, 
since we wouldn't have to pay publisher profit margins 
surpassing those at ExxonMobil. Jan Velterop, the former 
publisher of BioMed Central, once said that OA publishing 
can be profitable but will "bring profit margins more in 
line with the added value." 17 

To support a full range of high-quality OA journals, we 
don't need new money. We only need to redirect money 
we're currently spending on peer-reviewed toll-access 
journals. 18 There are many kinds of redirection. One is the 
voluntary conversion of toll-access journals to OA. Con- 
version could be a journal's grudging response to declining 
library budgets for toll-access journals and exclusion from 
the big deals that take the lion's share of library budgets. 
It could be a grudging response to its own past price in- 
creases and rising levels of green OA (see chapter 8 on ca- 
sualties). Or it could be a hopeful and enthusiastic desire 
to achieve the benefits of OA for authors (greater audience 
and impact), readers (freedom from price and permission 
barriers), and publishers themselves (increased reader- 
ship, citations, submissions, and quality). 

Another kind of redirection is the rise of OA jour- 
nal funds at universities. Even during times of declining 
budgets, libraries are setting aside money to pay publica- 
tion fees at fee-based OA journals. The funds help faculty 
choose OA journals for their new work and help build a 
sustainable alternative to toll-access journals. 19 


Redirection is also taking place on a large scale, pri- 
marily through CERN's SCOAP3 project (Sponsoring 
Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Phys- 
ics). SCOAP3 is an ambitious plan to convert all the major 
toll-access journals in particle physics to OA, redirect the 
money formerly spent on reader-side subscription fees to 
author-side publication fees, and reduce the overall price 
to the journal-supporting institutions. It's a peaceful revo- 
lution based on negotiation, consent, and self-interest. Af- 
ter four years of patiently building up budget pledges from 
libraries around the world, SCOAP3 entered its implemen- 
tation phase in in April 2011. 20 

If SCOAP3 succeeds, it won't merely prove that CERN 
can pull off ambitious projects, which we already knew. It 
will prove that this particular ambitious project has an un- 
derlying win-win logic convincing to stakeholders. Some 
of the factors explaining the success of SCOAP3 to date 
are physics-specific, such as the small number of targeted 
journals, the green OA culture in physics embraced even 
by toll-access publishers, and the dominance of CERN. 
Other factors are not physics-specific, such as the evident 
benefits for research institutions, libraries, funders, and 
publishers. A success in particle physics would give hope 
that the model could be lifted and adapted to other fields 
without their own CERN-like institutions to pave the way. 
Other fields would not need CERN-like money or domi- 
nance so much as CERN-like convening power to bring the 


stakeholders to the table. Then the win- win logic would 
have a chance to take over from there. 

Mark Rowse, former CEO of Ingenta, sketched another 
strategy for large-scale redirection in December 2003. A 
publisher could "flip" its toll-access journals to OA at one 
stroke by reinterpreting the payments it receives from uni- 
versity libraries as publication fees for a group of authors 
rather than subscription fees for a group of readers. One ad- 
vantage over SCOAP3 is that the Rowsean flip can be tried 
one journal or one publisher at a time, and doesn't require 
discipline-wide coordination. It could also scale up to the 
largest publishers or the largest coalitions of publishers. 21 

We have to be imaginative but we don't have to impro- 
vise. There are some principles we can try to follow. Money 
freed up by the cancellation or conversion of peer-re- 
viewed TA journals should be spent first on peer-reviewed 
OA journals, to ensure the continuation of peer review. 
Large-scale redirection is more efficient than small-scale 
redirection. Peaceful revolution through negotiation and 
self-interest is more amicable and potentially more pro- 
ductive than adaptation forced by falling asteroids. 

For the record, I advocate redirecting money freed up 
by cancellations or conversions, not canceling journals in 
order to free up money (except with SCOAP3 or Rowse-like 
consent and negotiation). This may look like hair-splitting, 
but the difference is neither small nor subtle. It's roughly 
the difference between having great expectations and 
planning to kill your parents. 




Will a general shift to OA leave casualties? 1 For example, 
will rising levels of green OA trigger cancellations of toll- 
access journals? 

This question matters for those publishers (not all 
publishers) who fear the answer is yes and for those ac- 
tivists (not all activists) who hope the answer is yes. So 
far, unfortunately, it doesn't have a simple yes-or-no an- 
swer, and most discussions replace evidence with fearful 
or hopeful predictions. 

The primary drivers of green OA are policies at uni- 
versities and funding agencies. Remember, all university 
policies allow publishers to protect themselves at will. (See 
section 4.1 on policies.) For example, universities with 
loophole or deposit mandates will not provide green OA 
when publishers do not allow it. Universities with Har- 
vard-style rights-retention mandates will not provide OA 

when authors obtain waivers or when publishers require 
authors to obtain waivers as a condition of publication. 

Hence, publishers who worry about the effect of uni- 
versity OA policies on subscriptions have the remedy in 
their own hands. Faculty needn't paternalize publishers 
by voting down OA policies when publishers can protect 
themselves whenever they see the need to do so. The ex- 
perience at Harvard since February 2008 is that very few 
publishers see the need to do so. Fewer than a handful sys- 
tematically require waivers from Harvard authors. 

This chapter, then, focuses on the strongest green OA 
mandates at funding agencies, like the Wellcome Trust 
and NIH, which allow no opt-outs for publishers or grant- 
ees. Will strong green OA policies of that kind trigger can- 
cellations of toll-access journals? Here are 10 parts of any 
complete answer. 

1. Nobody knows yet how green OA policies will affect 
journal subscriptions. 

Rising levels of green OA may trigger toll-access journal 
cancellations, or they may not. So far they haven't. 

2. The evidence from physics is the most relevant. 

Physics has the highest levels and longest history of green 
OA. The evidence from physics to date is that high levels 


of green OA don't cause journal cancellations. On the con- 
trary, the relationship between arXiv (the OA repository 
for physics) and toll-access physics journals is more sym- 
biotic than antagonistic. 

Physicists have been self -archiving since 1991, far 
longer than in any other field. In some subfields, such as 
particle physics, the rate of OA archiving approaches 100 
percent, far higher than in any other field. If high-volume 
green OA caused journal cancellations, we'd see the ef- 
fect first in physics. But it hasn't happened. Two leading 
publishers of physics journals, the American Physical So- 
ciety (APS) and Institute of Physics (IOP), have publicly 
acknowledged that they've seen no cancellations attribut- 
able to OA archiving. In fact, the APS and IOP have not 
only made peace with arXiv but now accept submissions 
from it and even host their own mirrors of it. 2 

3. Other fields may not behave like physics. 

We won't know more until the levels of green OA in other 
fields approach those in physics. 

It would definitely help to understand why the expe- 
rience in physics has gone as it has and how far it might 
predict the experience in other fields. But so far it's fair to 
say that we don't know all the variables and that publish- 
ers who oppose green OA mandates are not among those 
showing a serious interest in them. When publisher lob- 


byists argue that high-volume green OA will undermine 
toll-access journal subscriptions, they don't offer evi- 
dence, don't acknowledge the countervailing evidence 
from physics, don't rebut the evidence from physics, and 
don't qualify their own conclusions in light of it. They 
would act more like scientific publishers if they acknowl- 
edged the evidence from physics and then argued, as well 
as they could, either that the experience in physics will 
change or that fields other than physics will have a differ- 
ent experience. 

An October 2004 editorial in The Lancet (an Elsevier 
journal) called on the publishing lobby to do better. "[A]s ed- 
itors of a journal that publishes research funded by the NIH, 
we disagree with [Association of American Publishers Presi- 
dent Patricia Schroeder's] central claim. Widening access to 
research [through green OA mandates] is unlikely to bring 
the edifice of scientific publishing crashing down. Schroeder 
provides no evidence that it would do so; she merely asserts 
the threat. This style of rebuttal will not do. . . ." 3 

For more than eight years, green OA mandates have 
applied to research in many fields outside physics. These 
mandates are natural experiments and we're still monitor- 
ing their effects. At Congressional hearings in 2008 and 
2010, legislators asked publishers directly whether green 
OA was triggering cancellations. In both cases, publish- 
ers pointed to decreased downloads but not to increased 
cancellations. 4 


Physicists have been self- 
archiving since 1991, 
far longer than in any 
other field. In some sub- 
fields, such as particle 
physics, the rate of OA 
archiving approaches 
100 percent, far higher 
than in any other field. If 
high- volume green OA 
caused journal cancella- 
tions, we'd see the effect 
first in physics. But it 
hasn't happened. 

4. There is evidence that green OA decreases downloads 
from publishers' web sites. 

When users know about OA and toll-access editions of the 
same article, many will prefer to click through to the OA 
edition, either because they aren't affiliated with a sub- 
scribing institution or because authentication is a hassle. 
Moreover, when users find an OA edition, most stop look- 
ing. But decreased downloads are not the same thing as 
decreased or canceled subscriptions. 

Moreover, decreased downloads of toll-access editions 
from publisher web sites are not the same thing as de- 
creased downloads overall. No one suggests that green OA 
leads to decreased overall downloads, that is, fewer read- 
ers and less reading. On the contrary, the same evidence 
suggesting that OA increases citation impact also suggests 
that it increases readers and reading. 5 

5. Most publishers voluntarily permit green OA. 

Supplementing the natural experiments of green OA man- 
dates are the natural experiments of publishers who vol- 
untarily permit green OA. The Nature Publishing Group 
is more conservative than most toll-access publishers by 
requiring a six-month embargo on green OA, but more 
progressive than most by positively encouraging green OA. 
NPG reported the latest results of its multidisciplinary 
natural experiment in January 2011: "We have, to date, 

154 CHAPTER 8 

found author self-archiving compatible with subscription 
business models, and so we have been actively encourag- 
ing self-archiving since 2005." 6 

This or something similar to it must be the experience 
of the majority of toll-access publishers who voluntarily 
permit green OA. Even if they don't actively encourage 
green OA, most permit it without embargo. If they found 
that it triggered cancellations, they would stop. 

6. Green OA mandates leave standing at least four 
library incentives to maintain their subscriptions to toll- 
access journals. 

Even the strongest no-loophole, no- waiver policies preserve 
incentives to maintain toll-access journal subscriptions. 

First, all funder OA mandates include an embargo pe- 
riod to protect publishers. For example, the OA mandates 
at the Research Councils UK allow an embargo of up to six 
months after publication. The NIH allows an embargo of 
up to twelve months. Libraries wanting to provide imme- 
diate access will still have an incentive to subscribe. 

Second, all funder OA mandates apply to the final ver- 
sion of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, not to the 
published version. If the journal provides copyediting after 
peer review, then the policies do not apply to the copyedited 
version, let alone to the formatted, paginated published edi- 
tion. Libraries wanting to provide access to copyedited pub- 
lished editions will still have an incentive to subscribe. 


The purpose of these two policy provisions is precisely 
to protect publishers against cancellations. They are de- 
liberate concessions to publishers, adopted voluntarily by 
funding agencies as compromises with the public interest 
in immediate OA to the best editions. When we put the 
two together, we see that funder-mandated OA copies of 
peer-reviewed manuscripts won't compete with toll-access 
copies of the published editions for six to twelve months, 
and there will never be OA copies of the more desirable 
published editions unless publishers voluntarily allow 
them. Publishers retain life-of-copyright exclusivity on 
the published editions. Even if OA archiving does eventu- 
ally erode subscriptions outside physics, publishers have 
longer and better protection from these effects than their 
lobbyists ever acknowledge. 

Third, funder OA mandates only apply to research ar- 
ticles, not to the many other kinds of content published 
in scholarly journals, such as letters, editorials, review ar- 
ticles, book reviews, announcements, news, conference in- 
formation, and so on. Libraries wanting to provide access 
to these other kinds of content will still have an incentive 
to subscribe. 

Fourth, funder OA mandates only apply to articles 
arising from research funded by the mandating agency. 
Very few journals publish nothing but articles from a sin- 
gle funder, or even from a set of funders all of whom have 
OA mandates. Libraries wanting to provide access to all 


the research articles in a journal, regardless of the sources 
of funding, will still have an incentive to subscribe. This 
incentive will weaken as more and more funders adopt 
OA mandates, but we're very far from universal funder 
mandates. As we get closer, unfunded research will still 
fall outside this category and the three other incentives 
above will still stand. 

The Association of College and Research Libraries ad- 
dressed subscription incentives in a 2004 open letter on 
the NIH policy: "We wish to emphasize, above all, that aca- 
demic libraries will not cancel journal subscriptions as a 
result of this plan. . . . Even if libraries wished to consider 
the availability of NIH-funded articles when making jour- 
nal cancellation decisions, they would have no reasonable 
way of determining what articles in specific journals would 
become openly accessible after the embargo period." 7 

7. Some studies bear on the question of whether in- 
creased OA archiving will increase journal cancellations. 

In a 2006 study from the Publishing Research Consortium 
(PRC), Chris Beckett and Simon Inger asked 400 librarians 
about the relative weight of different factors in their de- 
cisions to cancel subscriptions. Other things being equal, 
the librarians preferred free content to priced content and 
short embargoes to longer ones. Publishers interpret this 
to mean that the rise of OA archiving will cause cancella- 


tions. The chief flaw with the study is its artificiality. For 
example, the survey did not ask about specific journals by 
name but only about resources with abstractly stipulated 
levels of quality It also disregarded faculty input on can- 
cellation decisions when all librarians acknowledge that 
faculty input is decisive. The result was a study of hypo- 
thetical preferences, not actual cancellation decisions. 8 

A less hypothetical study was commissioned by pub- 
lishers themselves in the same year. From the summary: 

The three most important factors used to determine 
journals for cancellation, in declining order of 
importance, are that the faculty no longer require it 
. . . , usage and price. Next, availability of the content 
via open access (OA) archives and availability via 
aggregators were ranked equal fourth, but some 
way behind the first three factors. The journal's 
impact factor and availability via delayed OA were 
ranked relatively unimportant. . . . With regard to 
OA archives, there was a great deal of support for 
the idea that they would not directly impact journal 
subscriptions. 9 

In short, toll-access journals have more to fear from 
their own price increases than from rising levels of green 
OA. Publishers who keep raising their prices aggravate the 
access problem for researchers and aggravate the sustain- 
ability problem for themselves. If the same publishers 

158 CHAPTER 8 

blame green OA and lobby against green OA policies, then 
they obstruct the solution for researchers and do very lit- 
tle to improve their own sustainability. 

8. OA may increase submissions and subscriptions. 

Some subscription journals have found that OA after an 
embargo period, even a very short one like two months, 
actually increases submissions and subscriptions. For ex- 
ample, this was the experience of the American Society for 
Cell Biology and its journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell. 

Medknow saw its submissions and subscriptions 
increase when it began offering unembargoed full-text 
editions of its journals alongside its toll-access print 
journals. 10 Hindawi Publishing saw its submissions rise 
steadily after it converted all its peer-reviewed journals 
to OA in 2007. Looking back on several years of rapidly 
growing submissions, company founder and CEO Ahmed 
Hindawi said in January 2010, "It is clear now more than 
ever that our open access conversion . . . was the best man- 
agement decision we have taken. . . ." u 

9. Some publishers fear that green OA will increase 
pressure to convert to gold OA. 

Some publishers fear that rising levels of green OA will 
not only trigger toll-access journal cancellations but also 


increase pressure to convert to gold OA. (Likewise, some 
OA activists hope for this outcome.) 

There are two responses to this two-fold fear. The fear 
of toll-access cancellations disregards the relevant evidence 
in points 1-8 above. The fear of conversion to gold OA also 
disregards relevant evidence, such as Ahmed Hindawi's 
testimony above, and the testimony of Springer CEO Derk 
Haank. In 2008 when Springer bought BioMed Central 
and became the world's largest OA publisher, Haank said: 
"[W]e see open access publishing as a sustainable part of 
STM publishing, and not an ideological crusade." (Also see 
chapter 7 on economics.) 12 

Publishers inexperienced with gold OA needn't defer 
to publishers with more experience, but they should at 
least study them. 

In fact, OA publishing might be more sustainable than 
TA publishing, as toll-access prices and the volume of re- 
search both grow faster than library budgets. (See section 
2.1 on problems.) If publishers acknowledge that gold OA 
can be sustainable, and even profitable, and merely wish to 
avoid making lower margins than they make today, then 
their objection takes on a very different color. They're not 
at risk of insolvency, just reduced profits, and they're not 
asserting a need for self-protection, just an entitlement 
to current levels of profit. There's no reason for public 
funding agencies acting in the public interest, or private 
funders acting for charitable purposes, to compromise 


their missions in order to satisfy that sense of publisher 

10. Green OA policies are justified even if they do create 
risks for toll-access journals. 

If we're only interested in the effect of rising levels of 
green OA on toll-access publishers, then we can stop at 
points 1-9. But if we're interested in good policy, then we 
must add one more factor: Even if green OA does eventu- 
ally threaten toll-access journal subscriptions, green OA 
policies are still justified. 

I won't elaborate this point here, since it takes us be- 
yond the topic of casualties to the full case for OA, which 
is spread throughout the rest of the book. But here's one 
way to put the debate in perspective: There are good rea- 
sons to want to know whether rising levels of green OA will 
trigger cancellations of toll-access journals, and perhaps 
even to modify our policies in light of what we learn. But 
there are no good reasons to put the thriving of incumbent 
toll-access journals and publishers ahead of the thriving of 
research itself. 



The basic idea of OA is simple. 1 But it has acquired crucial 
refinements over the years to answer objections and make 
implementation fast, easy, inexpensive, and lawful. This 
creates a tension. Because the basic idea is simple, it's con- 
tinually being rediscovered. However, people fresh to the 
concept haven't yet absorbed the refinements that answer 
objections and make implementation fast, easy, inexpen- 
sive, and lawful. 

Hence, one transition complexity is the fresh convert 
who supports OA in theory but doesn't understand how 
to pay for it, how to support peer review, how to avoid 
copyright infringement, how to avoid violating academic 
freedom, or how to answer many other long-answered 
objections and misunderstandings. A kindred complexity 
is the fresh convert who thinks the whole point is to by- 
pass peer review and convert scholarly communication to 

Hogging and Wikipedia entries, or who thinks the whole 
point is to disregard copyright in the name of a higher good. 

In short, one obstacle is an ironic side-effect of suc- 
cess. This simple idea is spreading faster than its refined 
elaboration, and it's recruiting allies who repeat old mis- 
understandings or overlook the strongest answers to fre- 
quently asked questions. Fortunately, the net benefits of 
persuaded newcomers far outweigh the ironic costs. 

Scholars who grew up with the internet are steadily 
replacing those who grew up without it. Scholars who 
expect to put everything they write online, who expect 
to find everything they need online, and who expect un- 
locked content that they may read, search, link, copy, cut/ 
paste, crawl, print, and redistribute, are replacing those 
who never expected these boons and got used to them, if 
at all, looking over their shoulder for the copyright police. 
Scholars who expect to find the very best literature online, 
harmlessly cohabiting with crap, are inexorably replacing 
scholars who, despite themselves perhaps, still associate 
everything online with crap. 

Some lazy scholars believe that if something is not free 
online, then it's not worth reading. This has never been 
true. However, it's gradually becoming true, and those who 
want it to become true can accelerate the process. Those 
who want to live in a world where all peer-reviewed journal 
literature is free online are themselves growing in numbers 
and will soon hold power in universities, libraries, learned 


societies, publishers, funding agencies, and governments. 
Generational change is on the side of OA. 2 

Even the passage of time without generational change 
is on the side of OA. Time itself has reduced panic-induced 
misunderstandings of OA. Everyone is getting used to the 
ideas that OA literature can be copyrighted, that rights- 
holders can waive rights and choose open licenses, that 
OA literature can be peer-reviewed, that the expenses for 
producing OA literature can be recovered, and that OA 
and toll-access can coexist even for the same work. Sur- 
prisingly many of the early obstacles to OA can be traced 
to a failure of imagination. Many seasoned academics just 
couldn't see these possibilities. The problem was not inco- 
herent ideas or stupid people — though both hypotheses 
circulated widely — but panic, unfamiliarity, and the viola- 
tion of unquestioned assumptions. For some stakeholders, 
clear explanations, repetition, or experience with working 
examples solved the problem. But for others it just took 
time. 3 

When newcomers misunderstood OA in the past, 
sometimes they had been misled by an explicit error pub- 
lished somewhere, perhaps by another newcomer. Most 
of the time, though, they just made unconscious assump- 
tions based on incomplete information and old models. 
This is the shock of the new at work. If OA uses the in- 
ternet, then it must bypass peer review. (Right?) If OA ar- 
ticles can be copied ad lib, then there must be copyright 

problems. (Right?) If OA is free of charge for end-users, 
then its proponents must be claiming that it costs nothing 
to produce. (Right?) If it has costs, then recovering those 
costs must be impossible. (Right?) These conclusions, of 
course, were uninformed leaps. Many who understood the 
conventional model (priced, printed, peer-reviewed, copy- 
righted) saw a proposal for something different and didn't 
know how many parameters of the old paradigm the new 
proposal wanted to tweak. The very common, hasty, and 
incorrect surmise: all of them. It was a classic case of seeing 
black and white before seeing shades of gray. 

Suddenly, everything good about the present system 
had to be defended, as if it were under attack. A lot of 
energy was wasted defending peer review, when it was 
never under attack. Much energy was also wasted defend- 
ing copyright — or celebrating its demise — when it was 
never under attack. (More precisely, copyright and copy- 
right excesses were under attack from other directions, 
but OA itself was always compatible with unrevised, un- 
balanced, unreconstructed copyright.) The debate about 
OA often drifted toward the larger debate about what was 
functional and dysfunctional in the present system of 
scholarly communication. This was valuable, but mixing 
narrow OA issues with broader ones created false impres- 
sions about what OA really was, how compatible it was 
with good features of the present system, and how easy it 
was to implement. 


As time passes, we see a steady rise in the proportion 
of correct to incorrect formulations of OA in high-profile 
discussions. When people encounter a fragmentary ver- 
sion of the idea for the first time today, their guesswork 
to flesh it out is guided by a much more reliable range of 
clues than just a few years ago. If they take the time to 
run an online search, the chance that they'll find reliable 
information before someone else's guesswork is approach- 
ing 100 percent. 

It's tempting to focus on the elegance of OA as a so- 
lution to serious problems and overlook the need for the 
sheer passage of time to overcome the shock of the new. 
Even if we acknowledge the need for cultural change in 
the transition to OA — far more critical than technological 
change — it's easy to underestimate the cultural barriers 
and the time required to work through them. OA may be 
compatible with copyright, peer review, profit, print, pres- 
tige, and preservation. But that doesn't quiet resistance 
when those facts about it are precisely the ones hidden by 
confident false assumptions. 

Not all resistance to OA is, or was, based on a misun- 
derstanding of the idea itself. But the largest single por- 
tion of it was. That portion is in decline, and that decline 
has many causes, including the hard work of thousands 
of people in every discipline and country. But a large and 
unquestionable part of that decline is due to the passage of 
time and the rise in mere familiarity with a once-new idea. 

The first irony of our still-short history is that OA has 
been impeded by the turbulence of its own success. The 
changes wrought by the mere passage of time point up a 
sad second irony. Nobody is surprised when cultural iner- 
tia slows the adoption of radical ideas. But cultural inertia 
slowed the adoption of OA by leading many people to mis- 
take it for a more radical idea than it actually is. 




10.1 How to Make Your Work Gold OA 

Publishing in an OA journal is like publishing in a con- 
ventional journal. Find a suitable journal and submit 
your manuscript. If you're not familiar with the range of 
peer-reviewed OA journals, the Directory of Open Access 
Journals (DOAJ) lets you browse by field. If you don't find 
an OA journal that meets your standards, check again 
when you've written your next paper. Things are changing 
quickly 1 

If you find an OA journal high in quality but too new 
to be high in prestige, consider submitting good work 
there anyway, to help it earn prestige in proportion to its 
quality. Without this kind of help, especially from senior 
scholars who have prestige to lend and don't need tenure, 
good new OA journals can be trapped in a vicious circle, 

needing high-quality submissions to generate prestige 
and needing prestige to attract high-quality submissions. 
(This may be the chief obstacle facing new journals.) 

Remember that about 30 percent of OA journals 
charge author-side fees and about half the articles pub- 
lished in OA journals appear in those fee-based journals. 
Hence, the best OA journal for your work may charge a 
publication fee. If so, don't be dismayed or give up on gold 
OA. Only 12 percent of authors at fee-based OA journals 
end up paying publication fees out of pocket. For most au- 
thors at fee-based journals, the fees are paid by a sponsor, 
such as a funder or employer, or the fees are waived or 
discounted by the journal. Moreover, the existence of a fee 
doesn't mean the journal is engaged in vanity publishing. 
Your work will be subject to peer review, the fee only kicks 
in if your work is accepted, and the editors and referees 
who review it will not know whether you requested a fee 
waiver. (See sections 5.1 on peer review and chapter 7 on 

If your research was funded, see whether your funder 
will cover the fee, either by allowing you to pay it with 
grant funds or by offering auxiliary funds specifically for 
this purpose. If your research wasn't funded, or if your 
funder won't cover the fees, check the Open Access Direc- 
tory or ask a librarian to see whether your institution has 
a fund to cover OA journal fees. If not, request a fee waiver 
from the journal. 2 


If you can't pay the fee or get it paid on your behalf, 
and you don't like the no-fee journals that may exist in 
your field, don't give up on OA. Just move on to green OA 
(section 10.2). 

Finally, remember that most OA journals are new, 
and that a new journal can be first-rate without yet hav- 
ing a reputation for being first-rate. To start assessing the 
quality of a new journal, first see whether you or your col- 
leagues recognize the names of any editors or members 
of the editorial board. Are they respected scholars? To 
make a start at assessing honesty and professionalism of 
a new journal, as opposed to its quality, see whether its 
publisher belongs to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers 
Association (OASPA), which has a good code of conduct for 
members. Many excellent OA publishers don't yet belong 
to OASPA. But if you're in doubt, you can't go wrong by 
limiting yourself to OASPA members. 3 

10.2 How to Make Your Work Green OA 

If you publish in a toll-access journal, the journal will usu- 
ally allow you to deposit your peer-reviewed manuscript 
in an OA repository. To know for sure, read the journal's 
publication agreement. If your eyes glaze over, or if you 
want to scan many different publisher policies quickly, see 
the SHERPA database of publisher policies. 4 


When a journal's standard publishing contract doesn't 
give you what you need, such as permission to deposit in an 
OA repository, there are two reasons to ask for modifica- 
tions. First, you may get what you want. Many publishers 
who don't give blanket permission for green OA will agree 
to case-by-case requests. Some publishers, even among 
the giants where you have the least bargaining power, will 
pull a "Plan B" agreement from a drawer when authors ask. 
Second, even when you don't get what you want, you will 
help educate publishers about shifting demand and rising 
expectations. This needn't be adversarial. Journals want 
to know what authors want. In any case, there's no harm in 
asking. A journal may decline your request, but it will not 
reject your already-accepted article just because you asked 
for a more favorable contract. 

If you don't know which modifications to request, use 
an author addendum: a proposed contract revision, writ- 
ten by OA-friendly lawyers, for authors to sign and sta- 
ple to their standard contract. If a publisher rejects your 
requested changes or addendum, then consider another 
publisher. 5 

Don't let all these details about contract modifica- 
tions scare you off. Most toll-access journals and publish- 
ers allow green OA without any contract modifications. I 
include these details for the minority of cases. Moreover, 
well-drafted OA policies at funding agencies or universi- 
ties can ensure permission for green OA without any ne- 


gotiation between authors and publishers. That's another 
reason to work toward a good policy at your university 
(See chapter 4 on policies.) 

If you have permission to deposit your work in an OA 
repository, then you'll need an OA repository where you 
have deposit rights. First look for an OA repository in your 
institution or field. 6 If there aren't any, check again when 
you've written your next paper. Things are changing fast. 
In the meantime, consider one of the universal reposito- 
ries open to research articles of all kinds. I recommend 
OpenDepot, OpenAire, Academia, and Mendeley. 7 

Consider providing green OA to your preprints or 
unrefereed manuscripts, not just to your postprints or 
peer-reviewed articles. One advantage is that you won't 
need any permission but your own. Because preprints 
are unpublished, you haven't transferred any rights to a 
publisher. One disadvantage is that some journals — ap- 
parently a shrinking minority but still sizeable in some 
fields, such as medicine — follow the so-called Ingelfinger 
Rule and don't accept articles that have already circulated 
as preprints. If you're worried about this, check with the 
journals where you'd like to publish and see whether they 
follow this practice. 

Provide OA to your datasets as soon as you can with 
the fewest restrictions you can. Most repositories accept 
arbitrary filetypes and could accept data files. But for da- 
tasets, repositories optimized for texts are not always as 


useful as repositories optimized for data. Check out the 
dedicated data repositories in your field. 8 

Graduate students should provide green OA to their 
theses and dissertations. Some repositories specialize in 
theses and dissertations, but most "regular" repositories 
will also accept them even when the institution doesn't 
mandate OA for them. (See section 5.2 on OA for theses 
and dissertations.) 

Your top priority should be OA for new and future 
work. But, time permitting, try to provide green OA to 
your past publications as well. Sometimes this will mean 
requesting permissions you didn't obtain at the time, or 
checking a publisher's current policy on repository depos- 
its. Sometimes it will mean digitizing print-only publica- 
tions. It may mean putting your hands on the version you 
are allowed to deposit, for example, the version approved 
by peer review but prior to copyediting. Your university 
may be able to offer help with some of these tasks; check 
with your library. 



Gold OA 

OA through journals, regardless of the journal's business model. Also see Green 


Gratis OA 

Access that is free of charge but not necessarily free of copyright and licensing 
restrictions. Also see Libre OA. 

Green OA 

OA through repositories. Also see Gold OA; Repository; Self-archiving. 

Libre OA 

Access that is both free of charge (gratis OA) and free of at least some copy- 
right and licensing restrictions. Because there are many possible copyright and 
licensing restrictions, libre OA is not just one access model but a range of access 
models. All the degrees of libre OA are alike in permitting uses that exceed fair 
use (or the local equivalent). Also see Gratis OA; License. 


A statement from a copyright holder telling users what they may and may not 
do with a copyrighted work. Open licenses, such as those from Creative Com- 
mons, permit different degrees of libre OA. In the absence of an open license, 
a copyrighted work is under an all-rights -re served copyright, its users may not 
exceed fair use (or the local equivalent), and OA is at most gratis OA. Also see 
Gratis OA; Libre OA. 

Open access (OA) 

Barrier-free access to online works and other resources. OA literature is digital, 
online, free of charge (gratis OA), and free of needless copyright and licensing 
restrictions (libre OA). The term was introduced by the Budapest Open Access 
Initiative in February 2002. 

Publication fee 

Sometimes called a processing fee and sometimes (erroneously) an author fee. 
A fee charged by some OA journals when accepting an article for publication, 
in order to cover the costs of production. It's one way to cover production costs 
without charging readers and erecting access barriers. While the bill goes to 
the author, the fee is usually paid by the author's funder or employer, not by 
the author out of pocket. 


In the world of OA, a repository is an online database of OA works. Repositories 
don't perform their own peer-review, but they may host articles peer-reviewed 
elsewhere. In addition, they frequently host unrefereed preprints, electronic 
theses and dissertations, books or book chapters, datasets, and digitized print 
works from the institution's library. Institutional repositories aim to host the 
research output of an institution, while disciplinary or central repositories aim 
to host the research output of a field. 

Self -archiving 

Also called OA archiving. The practice of making work OA by depositing it in 
an OA repository. Also see Green OA. 

Toll access (TA) 

Access limited to those who pay. The most generic term for the opposite of OA. 




1. See the continually updated bibliography of my articles on open access. 
Also see Charles W. Bailey Jr., "Transforming Scholarly Publishing through 
Open Access: A Bibliography," Digital Scholarship, 2010. 


Chapter 1 

1. Budapest Open Access Initiative, February 14, 2002 (disclosure: I was the 
principal drafter) . 
Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, June 20, 2003. 

_bethesda.htm?sequence= 1 
Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humani- 
ties, October 22, 2003. 

2. On the growth of OA over the past decade, see my annual reviews of OA 
progress, starting in 2003: 




. htm ?sequence=l 

. htm ?sequence=l 


. htm ?sequence=l 

3. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview." 

_oaover view, htm? sequence=l 
"Creating an Intellectual Commons through Open Access," in Charlotte Hess 
and Elinor Ostrom (eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory 
to Practice, MIT Press, 2006. 

http://dash.harvard.edU/bitstream/handle/l/45 5 2055/suber 
_intellectcommons.pdf ?sequence=l 
"Six things that researchers need to know about open access," SPARC Open Ac- 
cess Newsletter, February 2, 2006. 

My answers to Richard Poynder's interview questions in "The Basement Inter- 
views: Peter Suber," October 19, 2007. 

4. On the origin of scholarly journals, see Jean-Claude Guedon, "In Olden- 
burg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Con- 
trol of Scientific Publishing," Association of Research Libraries, 2001. 
Some authors are paid for journal articles. On some of these exceptions, see: 
"Open access when authors are paid," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, December 
2, 2003. 

Also see Jufang Shao and Huiyun Shen, "The Outflow of Academic Papers from 
China," Learned Publishing 24, no. 2 (April 2011). 

5. For more, see "Open access, markets, and missions," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, March 2, 2010. 


6. See Steve Hitchcock, "The Effect of Open Access and Downloads ('Hits') on 
Citation Impact: A Bibliography of Studies," the Open Citation Project, con- 
tinually updated. 
Also see Alma Swan's technical report, which includes summary findings of all 
the major studies from 2001 to 2010: 
"Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date," Technical Re- 
port, School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, 
August 2010. 
Also see Ben Wagner's "Open Access Citation Advantage: An Annotated Bibli- 
ography," Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Winter 2010. 

Though [the explanation for the correlation] is not settled, the 
bibliography cites a number of studies designed to test the hypothesis 
of confounding extraneous causes. It is clear that open access articles 
are downloaded far more than toll access articles. Studies indicate this 
download advantage is easily 100% over toll access articles. It seems 
unlikely such a large download advantage would not to some degree 
eventually influence the number of citations. . . . Publication in an open 
access journal (Gold OA) apparently is not required to get a significant 
OA citation advantage. 
Among the continuing controversies is how far to attribute the correlation 
to self- selection, or decisions by authors to deposit their best work in OA re- 
positories. Tending to deny the OA citation advantage, a December 2010 study 
by Philip Davis tried to rule out self-selection bias by randomly making some 
articles OA and others toll access. The OA articles were downloaded more often 
but not cited more often than the toll-access articles. Tending to confirm the 
OA citation advantage, an October 2010 study by Yassine Gargouri, Stevan 
Harnad, and colleagues tried to rule out self- selection bias by showing that the 
OA citation advantage was just as high for mandated OA archiving as it was for 
voluntary OA archiving. See Philip M. Davis, "Does Open Access Lead to In- 
creased Readership and Citations? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Articles 
Published in APS [American Physiological Society] Journals," The Physiologist, 
53(6), December 2010. 

http ://www. the-aps . org/publications/tphys/2 1 Ohtml/December/open 
Also see Yassine Gargouri et al., "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access In- 
creases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research," PLoS ONE [Public Li- 
brary of Science], October 18, 2010. 

7. See Hamad's use of this analogy in this March 2007 discussion thread from 
the American Scientist Open Access Forum. 

8. Tim O'Reilly, "Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the 
Evolution of Online Distribution," O'Reilly P2P, December 11, 2002. 


9. Budapest Open Access Initiative, February 14, 2002. 

10. This section borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview." 

"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. 


11. This section borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Open access and quality," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 2006. 

"Balancing author and publisher rights," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 
2, 2007. 

http://dash.harvard.edU/bitstream/handle/l/43 911 5 8/suber 

12. In a December 2010 speech, Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European 
Commission for the Digital Agenda, remarked that "the beauty of open access 
is that it is not against anybody. It is for the free movement of knowledge." do?reference=SPEECH/10 

Chapter 2 

1. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Removing the Barriers to Research: An Introduction to Open Access for Librar- 
ians," College & Research Libraries News, 64 (February 2003), pp. 92-94, 113. 

.html? sequence =5 
"The scaling argument," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 2, 2004. 

"Problems and opportunities (blizzards and beauty)," SPARC Open Access Newl- 
setter, July 2, 2007. 

"A bill to overturn the NIH policy," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 


2. For the two decades, from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, the price of 
toll-access journals rose more than 2.5 times faster than inflation. Associa- 
tion for Research Libraries, Monograph and Serial Expenditures in ARL Libraries, 
In June 2010, Mark Bauerlein and four co-authors reported that "[f]rom 1978 
to 2001, libraries at the University of California at Los Angeles . . . saw their 
subscription costs alone climb by 1,300 percent." 
Between 1986 and 1999, "serial costs increased at 9% a year [while! library 
materials budgets increased at only 6.7% a year." During the same period, the 
unit price of journals increased by 207%, while the cost of health care increased 
by only 107%. See the Scholarly Communication FAQ from the University of 
California's Office of Systemwide Library Planning, February 29, 2003. 
For prices of individual journals, see MIT's Expensive Journals List: Current 
MIT subscriptions costing more than $5,000/year (last updated 7/16/09). 


/about/scholarly /expensive- titles. html 
For the latest survey of journal prices and the average prices by field, see Ste- 
phen Bosch, Kittie Henderson, & Heather Klusendorf, "Periodicals Price Survey 
2011: Under Pressure, Times Are Changing," Library Journal, April 14, 2011. It 
shows journal prices continuing to rise faster than inflation, and library seri- 
als budgets actually declining, not merely growing more slowly than inflation. 

3. Directory of Open Access Journals. 
Most observers estimate that there are about 25,000 peer-reviewed journals in 
all fields and languages, making the OA portion about 26 percent of the total. 
There's some evidence that the average OA journal publishes fewer articles/ 
year than the average toll-access journal, making the OA portion (by articles 
rather than journals) even smaller than 26 percent. If we supplement the 
number of peer-reviewed articles published by OA journals with the number 
of peer-reviewed OA articles published by toll-access journals but disseminated 
with permission by OA repositories, the portion goes up again. 

4. "Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content," Research 
Information Network, December 2009. 

5. See Robin Peek, "Harvard Faculty Mandates OA," Information Today, April 
1, 2008. 

Here's the full quotation from Stuart Shieber: "At Harvard, serials duplication 
has been all but eliminated and serious cancellation efforts have been initiated. 
Monograph collecting has been substantially affected as well. In total, our fac- 
ulty have seen qualitative reductions in access to the literature." 

The Harvard University library is the largest academic library in the world 
and has the largest annual budget. But see "Libraries on the Edge," Harvard 
Magazine, Jan-Feb 2010: "[B]udgetary pressures that have been building dur- 
ing the past decade, and intensified in the past year, threaten the ability of the 
world's largest private library to collect works as broadly as it has in the past. . 
. ." Library Directory Robert Darnton said acquisitions fell "precipitously" the 
previous year and described the situation as "a crisis." 

6. The numbers I quote are based on personal communications with librarians. 
Unfortunately it's hard to get data on subscriptions to peer-reviewed journals 
alone rather than subscriptions to the larger category of serials. 

7. As a result of bundling, the number of titles to which academic libraries in 
North America subscribed rose by 42 percent in the from the mid-1980s to 

the mid-2000s, but library expenditures for those titles rose by 273 percent 
or nearly four times faster than inflation. Association for Research Libraries, 
Monograph and Serial Expenditures in ARL Libraries, 1986-2004. 
Also see Kittie S. Henderson and Stephen Bosch, "Seeking the New Normal: 
Periodicals Price Survey 2010," Library Journal, April 15, 2010: "Libraries are 
aware . . . that the top journals in a bundle continue to generate the majority 
of use while the low-use journals still account for a large portion of the cost." 
In November 2010, the Research Libraries UK announced that "it would not 
support future journal big deals unless they showed real price reductions." 

8. See Elsevier's financial summary for 2010. On revenues of £2,026 million 
(about $3,290 million), it earned profits of £724 million (about $1,180 mil- 
lion), or 36 percent. 
_s ummary. htm 
In 2010, ExxonMobil earned revenues of $383,221 million and profits of 
$107,827 million, or 28.1 percent. 

Journal publishing is more profitable at Elsevier than entertainment is at Dis- 
ney (17.7 percent). 

. aspx? symb ol = DI S 

9. See the Big Deal Contract Project from Ted Bergstrom, Paul Courant, and 
Preston McAfee. 
For details on Elsevier's attempt to block the release of its big-deal contract 
with Washington State, see the June 2009 press release from the Association 
Research Libraries (ARL). 

10. See James McPherson, "A Crisis in Scholarly Publishing," Perspectives, Oc- 
tober 2003. Also see Association for Research Libraries, Monograph and Serial 
Expenditures in ARL Libraries, 1986-2004. 

The number of books purchased by the ARL libraries from the mid-1980s to 
the mid-2000s dropped by nearly 10 percent, and the expenditure for books 
rose more slowly than the inflation rate. 

11. For more on the permissions crisis, see my article "Removing the Barriers 
to Research: An Introduction to Open Access for Librarians," College & Research 
Libraries News, 64 (February 2003), pp. 92-94, 113. 

.html? sequence =5 

12. In March 2011, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & 
Medical Publishers estimated that 96 percent of journals in the STM fields had 
online editions. Of course, most were toll access. 

13. In 2008, the Research Information Network calculated that researchers 
worldwide donate to journal publishers £1.9 billion/year (about $3 billion/ 
year) in time spent on performing peer review. 

14. For more on publisher objections that OA initiatives interfere with the 
market, see "Will open access undermine peer review?" SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, September 2, 2007. 

"Open access, markets, and missions," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 
2, 2010. 


15. Theodore and Carl Bergstrom have shown that toll-access journal prices 
are either unrelated to quality or inversely related to it. Their analysis shows 
that "libraries typically must pay 4 to 6 times as much per page for journals 
owned by commercial publishers as for journals owned by non-profit societ- 
ies. These differences in price do not reflect differences in the quality of the 
journals. In fact the commercial journals are on average less cited than the non- 
profits and the average cost per citation of commercial journals ranges from 
5 to 15 times as high as that of their non-profit counterparts." See Theodore 
and Carl Bergstrom, "Can 'author pays' journals compete with 'reader pays'?" 
Nature, May 20, 2004. 

Theodore Bergstrom and Preston McAfee maintain the Journal Cost Effective- 
ness calculator, which computes the cost per article and cost per citation for 
a given journal. 
For a summary of their data, showing that for-profit publishers charge more 
per article and per citation, see their statistical summary from April 2011. 
On quality, in 2005 Sally Morris summarized the studies to date: "All the evi- 
dence shows that non-profit journals are on average both less expensive and 
of higher quality. . . ." See Sally Morris, "The true costs of scholarly journal 
publishing," Learned Publishing 18 (2, April 2005), 115-126. 


16. See Roger Clarke, "The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal 
publishing," First Monday, December 3, 2007. 

17. See the Credit Suisse First Boston financial analysis of the STM journal 
industry, April 6, 2004. This report is not online, but I summarized it in the 
SPARC Open Access Newsletter for May 3, 2004. 

Toll-access publishers don't dispute this, but they claim that the same econom- 
ics apply to fee-based OA journals. For five reasons why they don't, see my arti- 
cle, "Open access and quality," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 2006. 

18. Jan Velterop, "Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environ- 
ment," LibLicense, April 26, 2006. 
On the on the moral hazard, see Stuart Shieber's article-length blog posts from 
March 1, 2011, and July 31, 2010. 

19. While all OA initiatives help researchers, only some help libraries by re- 
ducing prices or enabling cancellations. For more, see "Helping scholars and 
helping libraries," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, April 2, 2005. 


20. I first used the Croesus example in an interview with Richard Poynder, 
"Suber: Leader of a Leaderless Revolution," Information Today, July 1, 2011. 
- Revolution . shtml 
Also see "The scaling argument," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 2, 2004. 

21. Crispin Davis, "Science books are vanishing from reach," The Guardian, 
February 19, 2005. 

The charitable reading of Davis's argument is that he believes the serials crisis 
is a library budget problem, not a journal pricing problem. This position over- 
looks that (1) not even the University of Croesus can keep pace with the grow- 
ing volume of the literature, and (2) no real library anywhere, not even Harvard, 
has kept pace with decades of hyperinflationary price increases. 

22. Lawrence H. Pitts, Chair of University of California Academic Senate, an 
open letter to the University of California faculty, January 7, 2004. 

23. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"The scaling argument," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 2, 2004. 

"Problems and opportunities (blizzards and beauty)," SPARC Open Access News- 
letter, July 2, 2007. 

"Open access and the last-mile problem for knowledge," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, July 2, 2008. 


"Open access, markets, and missions," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 
2, 2010. 


24. See H. A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, printed by the 
United States Congress, 1853-54, vol. VI, 180. 

25. At the launch of PLoS Medicine in May 2004, Nobel laureate and PLoS co- 
founder Harold Varmus said, "Thanks to the Internet and new strategies for 
financing publication costs, it is now possible to share the results of medical 
research with anyone, anywhere, who could benefit from it. How could we not 
do it?" 

Chapter 3 

1. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview." 

"Thinking about prestige, quality, and open access," SPARC Open Access Newslet- 
ter, September 2, 2008. 

"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. 


2. See Marie E. McVeigh, "Open Access Journals in the ISI Citation Databases: 
Analysis of Impact Factors and Citation Patterns Thomson Scientific," Thom- 
son Scientific, October 2004. 


3. The first peer-reviewed OA journals were launched in the 1980s. See the list 
of "Early OA journals" at the Open Access Directory 
While some OA journals are now fairly old, the average age of OA journals is 
far lower than the average age of toll-access journals. On the disadvantages 

that arise from being new, see my article "Thinking about prestige, quality, and 
open access," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, September 2, 2008. 

_oaquality.html? sequence =1 

4. For current data on how many toll-access publishers and journals give blan- 
ket permission for green OA, see the SHERPA statistics page. 
For toll-access journal and publisher policies on green OA, see SHERPA's Rights 
MEtadata for Open archiving database (RoMEO). 
For evidence that toll-access publishers permitting green OA approach 100 
percent when authors are subject to green OA mandates, see the Open Access 
Directory list of publisher policies on NIH-funded authors. 

5. See the Open Archives Initiative. 
Also see my article, "The case for OAI in the age of Google," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, May 3, 2004. 

6. For institutional repositories, see the Registry of Open Access Repositories 
(ROAR) and the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR). 

http : //roar, eprints . o rg 
For disciplinary repositories organized by field, see the wiki-based list at the 
Open Access Directory. 

7. See arXiv. 

http : //arxiv. o rg 
See PubMed Central. 

http : //www.pubme dcentral. gov 

8. See the data collected by Arthur Sale in a series of publications from 2005 
and 2006.!d=1830 

9. See Muluken Wubayehu Alemayehu, "Researchers' attitude to using insti- 
tutional repositories: A case study of the Oslo University Institutional Reposi- 
tory," Master's thesis at Oslo University College, 2010. Surveyed authors had 

"a low level awareness of the Institutional repository" at the same time as "a 
positive attitude towards providing free access to scholarly research results. . . ." 
Also see a SURFShare survey of Dutch faculty from the Fall of 2010. "Almost 
90% of the lectors ["associate professors who carry out research and organise 
knowledge networks"] at Dutch universities of applied sciences are in favor of 
making their research results freely available. . . . They also say they need to 
know just what Open Access publication actually involves." 

-publication&catid= 1 : news-archive 
For a thorough review of the literature up to 2009, showing low levels of au- 
thor opposition and high levels of unfamiliarity, see Jenny Fry et al., "PEER 
Behavioural Research: Authors and Users vis-a-vis Journals and Repositories: 
Baseline report," PEER Project, September 2009, especially pp. 15-17. 

10. This section borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Eleventh hour for SCOAP3," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, December 2, 2010. 

My answers to Richard Poynder's interview questions in "The Basement Inter- 
views: Peter Suber," October 19, 2007. 

11. I discuss this kind of decoupling in "Eleventh hour for SCOAP3," SPARC 
Open Access Newsletter, December 2, 2010. 


12. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview" 


My answers to Richard Poynder's interview questions in "The Basement Inter- 
views: Peter Suber," October 19, 2007. 
"Gratis and libre open access," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, August 2, 2008. 
"Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities," SPARC Open 
Access Newsletter, February 2, 2009. 

"Ten challenges for open-access journals," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Oc- 
tober 2, 2009. 


13. For the fair use section of the U.S. copyright statute, see 17 USC 107. The 
statute makes the boundary between fair and unfair use slightly less fuzzy by 
listing four factors for determining whether a use is fair. But all four factors 
have their own fuzz, and it's very hard to know how they will be weighed in a 
given case without going to court. 

14. For the distinction in the world of software, see the Wikipedia article "Gra- 
tis versus libre." 

15. For detail on how these two distinctions intersect, see the table I posted 
to Open Access News, August 2, 2008. 

16. See Creative Commons. 

http : //ere ative comm ons .org 

17. The public domain is one way to solve the permission problem for OA. But 
if public- domain works are not yet digital and online, they are not yet OA. This 
is a nontrivial gap, and around the world institutions and governments are 
devoting enormous amounts of money and energy to digitizing works in the 
public domain in order to put them online and make them OA. 

18. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). 
SPARC Europe Seal of Approval program for OA journals. 
http://www.doaj. org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq#seal 

19. For details on the long, difficult struggle to enact and strengthen the gra- 
tis OA policy at the NIH, see my eighteen articles on the process from 2004 
to 2009. 
For university OA policies adopted by unanimous faculty votes, see the list of 
unanimous faculty votes at the Open Access Directory. 

20. As of May 12, 2011: 1,370 out of 6,497 journals in the DOAJ, or 21.1 
percent, use some kind of CC license. 

http://www.doaj. org/?func=licensedJournals 
As of the same date, 723 (11.1 percent) have the SPARC Europe Seal of Ap- 
proval (requiring CC-BY). 

http://www.doaj. org/?func=sealedJournals 
The DOAJ doesn't actually count journals with CC-BY licenses. It counts jour- 
nals with the SPARC Europe Seal, which requires CC-BY licenses. But the seal 
also requires journals to share metadata in a certain way. Hence, it's possible for 
many journals to use CC-BY and fail to earn the seal because they don't share 
their metadata appropriately. In that case the SPARC Seal tally would under- 
count the journals using CC-BY. But in fact, many more DOAJ journals share 
their metadata than use CC-BY, making the seal tally a good approximation to 
a CC-BY tally. Thanks to Lars Bjornshauge for the latter detail. 

21. See "Clipping Our Own Wings Copyright and Creativity in Communica- 
tion Research," a report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Fair Use and Academic 
Freedom, International Communication Association, March 2010. A survey 
of scholars in the field of communications found that a third avoided topics 
raising copyright issues, a fifth faced publisher resistance to scholarly use 
of copyrighted work, and a fifth abandoned research in progress because of 
copyright problems. Many are told to obtain permission to discuss or criticize 
copyrighted works. 
/documents/clipping- our- own- wings -copyright-and- creativity 

Chapter 4 

1. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 

"Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities," SPARC Open 
Access Newsletter, February 2, 2009. 

"Three principles for university open access policies," SPARC Open Access News- 
letter, April 2, 2008. 

"The Primacy of Authors in Achieving Open Access," Nature, June 10, 2004. 
"Open access to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs)," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, July 2, 2006. 


2. The best list of funder and university OA policies is Registry of Open Access 
Repository Material Archiving Policies (ROARMAP). 

http ://roarmap . eprints . org 
For case studies of OA policies at universities, see the "oa. case. policies. univer- 
sities" tag library at the Open Access Tracking Project. 
For case studies of OA policies at funding agencies, see the " 
funders" tag library. 

3. Universities with request or encouragement policies include Germany's 
University of Bielefeld (June 2005), Canada's University of Athabasca (Novem- 
ber 2006), Carnegie Mellon University (November 2007), Swedish University 
of Agricultural Sciences (February 2008), University of Oregon (February 
2008), University of Washington (April 2009), University of Utrecht (April 
2009), Finland's University of Tampere (August 2009), University of Virginia 
(September 2009), the librarians and archivists at York University (October 
2009), Italy's University of Sassari (January 2010), San Jose State University 
(April 2010), the librarians and archivists at Queen's University (April 2010), 
the librarians at Arizona State University (October 2010), and Emory Univer- 
sity (March 2011). 

4. See Alma Swan's chart of new green OA mandates from 2002 to 2010. 
Also see the smaller chart on the front page of ROARMAP, automatically up- 
dated as new policies are registered with ROARMAR 

http ://roarmap . eprints .org 
On the principle that university policies must respect faculty freedom to sub- 
mit their work to the journals of their choice, see "Three principles for univer- 
sity open access policies," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, April 2, 2008. 

_3principles.html? sequence =2 
For the same reason that a gold OA mandate would be bad policy today, it's a 
bad idea to propose a green OA mandate to a population unclear on the green/ 
gold distinction and likely to construe the proposal as a gold OA mandate. See 
"Lessons from Maryland," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 2, 2009. 



5. Universities with loophole mandates include the University of Zurich (July 
2005), Macquarie University (August 2008), University College London (Oc- 
tober 2008), University of Westminster (July 2009), Edith Cowan University 
(September 2009), University of Strathclyde (October 2009), Dublin Institute 
of Technology (December 2009), Brunei University (January 2010), Univer- 
sity of Ghent (January 2010), Concordia University (April 2010), Karlsruher 
Institut fur Technologie (May 2010), V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 
(August 2010), College of Mount Saint Vincent (October 2010), Malmo Uni- 
versity (December 2010). 

6. The deposit mandate was pioneered by Southampton University's Depart- 
ment of Electronics and Computer Science, February 5, 2003. It was the first 
university OA mandate anywhere. 

http ://roarmap . eprints .org/1 
Southampton later adopted a university-wide version of the same type of 
policy on April 4, 2008. 

http ://roarmap . eprints .org/8 
Stevan Harnad, who favors this model, calls it "immediate deposit / optional 
access" (IDOA). 
Universities with Southampton-style deposit mandates include Queensland 
University of Technology (initially September 2003 and strengthened since), 
University of Minho (initially December 2004 and strengthened since), Uni- 

versity of Liege (initially March 2007 and strengthened since), University of 
Pretoria (May 2009), University of Northern Colorado Libraries (December 
2009), University of Salford (January 2010), and University of Hong Kong 
(April 2010). 

7. The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted this policy by a unani- 
mous vote in February 2008. 

Today, seven of Harvard's nine schools operate under similar policies. 

http : //os c . hul . harvard, e du 
Universities with rights-retention mandates along the lines of the Harvard 
Faculty of Arts and Sciences include Harvard University Law School (May 
2008), Stanford University School of Education (June 2008), Harvard Univer- 
sity Kennedy School of Government (March 2009), Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology (March 2009), University of Kansas (April 2009), University 
of Oregon Library Faculty (May 2009), University of Oregon Department 
of Romance Languages (May 2009), Harvard University Graduate School of 
Education (June 2009), Trinity University (October 2009), Oberlin College 
(November 2009), Wake Forest University Library Faculty (February 2010), 
Harvard University Business School (February 2010), Duke University (March 
2010), University of Puerto Rico Law School (March 2010), Harvard University 
Divinity School (November 2010), the University of Hawaii-Manoa (December 
2010), Strathmore University (February 2011), and the Harvard University 
Graduate School of Design (April 2011). 

Also see Simon Frankel and Shannon Nestor, "How Faculty Authors Can 
Implement an Open Access Policy at Their Institutions," Covington and Burl- 
ing, August 2010. In a legal analysis commissioned by SPARC and Science Com- 
mons, attorneys Frankel and Nestor recommended the rights-retention model 
used by Harvard and MIT for advancing OA and avoiding copyright pitfalls. 

8. The EPrints repository software from Southampton University introduced 
the email-request button in April 2006. Later the same week, a developer at 
Minho University released code for adding the feature to DSpace repositories. 

9. The Wellcome Trust OA mandate took effect on October 1, 2005. 
Also see my article on the policy, "The Wellcome Trust OA mandate takes ef- 
fect," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 2005. 


The NIH policy took effect as an encouragement policy on May 2, 2005, and as 
a mandate on April 7, 2008. 
Also see my eighteen articles on the NIH policy. 
Among other funding agencies with no-waiver rights-retention policies are 
the Arthritis Research Campaign, Cancer Research UK, the UK Department 
of Health, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the UK Medical Research 
Council, and the Swedish Research Council. 

In a major report on the state of OA in the United Kingdom, the Centre 
for Research Communications recommended that that UK funders "to take a 
robust attitude to copyright and reserve copyright for OA archiving prior to 
any downstream agreement with publishers." See "Research Communication 
Strategy Quarterly Report," July 2010. 
_ano nymis e d . pdf 

10. On publisher accommodation of the NIH policy, see the Open Access Di- 
rectory list of publisher policies on NIH-funded authors. 

11. "Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities," SPARC 
Open Access Newsletter, February 2, 2009.^tstream/handle/l/4322589/suber 

12. For my arguments in support of OA mandates for theses and dissertations, 
see "Open access to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs)," SPARC Open 
Access Newsletter, July 2, 2006. 


For a list of ETD mandates, see ROARMAP. 
The first universities in the world to limit the review of journal articles for pro- 
motion and tenure to those on deposit in the institutional repository were Na- 
pier University (now called Edinburgh Napier University) and the University 
of Liege, both in 2008. They've since been followed, among others, by China's 
National Science Library, the University of Oregon Department of Romance 
Languages, India's International Center for Tropical Agriculture, and Canada's 
Institute for Research in Construction. 

13. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 

"Open access to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) ," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, July 2, 2006. 

My comments on the word "mandate" in dialog with Jan Velterop, March 4, 
"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. 


14. See Stuart Shieber on the word "mandate." 

15. Note that many funding agencies deliberately avoid the word "contract" 
for their funding agreements and prefer to consider them awards or gifts. 

16. See Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, "Authors and open access publishing," 
Learned Publishing 17 (3) 2004, pp. 219-224; and Swan and Brown, "Open 
access self-archiving: An author study," Departmental Technical Report, 2005. 
Also see the summary of Swan and Brown's data at Enabling Open Scholarship. 
For more recent studies, showing even higher levels of support, see Kumiko 
Vezina (2008, 83 percent willingness) and Graham Stone (2010, 86 percent 

196 NOTES 

17. See my article "Unanimous faculty votes," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 
June 2, 2010. 

After my article appeared, I moved the list of unanimous faculty votes to the 
Open Access Directory, a wiki, where it has since been enlarged by the com- 
Note that many but not all the policies adopted by unanimous faculty votes 
are mandates. 

18. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 

"The open access mandate at Harvard," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 
2, 2008. 

"Three principles for university open access policies," SPARC Open Access News- 
letter, April 2, 2008. 

"Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities," SPARC Open 
Access Newsletter, February 2, 2009. 

_oaoptions .html?sequence = 1 
"Open access in 2010," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, January 2, 2011. 


19. This is why strong OA policies at large institutions are so important. The 
NIH is the largest funder of nonclassified research in the world. Publishers can- 
not afford to refuse to publish NIH-funded authors, and as a result publisher 
accommodation of the NIH's OA mandate is 100 percent. 

20. UK PubMed Central (UKPMC) reported that the percentage of annual de- 
posits that are libre OA, and not merely gratis OA, rose from 7 percent in 2001 
to 33 percent in 2009. 
In 2010 alone, seven green OA mandates required some degree of libre OA: 
those from the Library Faculty at Arizona State University, Australian National 
University, Harvard Business School, Harvard Divinity School, University of 
Sassari, Sweden's Royal Library, and the Washington State Board for Com- 
munity and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) on behalf of thirty-four institutions. 
Whether we consider these to be seven policies (the number of enactments) or 
forty (the number of institutions covered), the number significantly surpasses 
the three libre green policies adopted in 2009. 

Going back farther, since 2007 the Wellcome Trust and UKPMC Funders Group 
have required green libre OA whenever they pay for publication and not just 
for the underlying research. 

In 2009, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened a group of major public 
and private funding agencies, which called on funders of medical research to 
mandate green libre OA. The group includes the Gates Foundation, Burroughs 
Wellcome Fund, Merck Company Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security, and US. Department of State. 
In October 2010, a $20 million funding program from the Gates Foundation, 
the Next Generation Learning Challenges, mandated libre OA for the results 
of funded projects. 
In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor and Department of Education 
announced the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 
Training (TAACCCT), a four-year, $2 billion funding program for open educa- 
tional resources (OER) mandating libre OA under CC- BY licenses. 



Libre green policies were recommended in the Berkman Center's Evaluation of 
Private Foundation Copyright Licensing Policies, Practices and Opportunities 
(August 2009) and in the Ghent Declaration (February 2011). 
-res earch-ghent-declaration-published&catid= 76: highlights &lang= en 

Chapter 5 

1. This section borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview" 

view, htm? sequence=l 
"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. 

guide. html?sequence=l 

2. For some purposes we must distinguish two kinds of postprint: those that 
have been peer-reviewed but not copyedited and those that have been both 
peer-reviewed and copyedited. Some publishers allow authors to deposit the 
first kind but not the second in an OA repository. 

3. This section borrows from my: 

"Open access to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs)," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, July 2, 2006. 


4. See Gail McMillan, "Do ETDs Deter Publishers? Does Web availability count 
as prior publication? A report on the 4th International Conference on Elec- 
tronic Theses and Dissertations," College and Research Libraries News 62 (6) 
(June 2001). "[T]he ready availability of ETDs on the Internet does not deter 
the vast majority of publishers from publishing articles derived from graduate 
research already available on the Internet." 

The case is less certain for books. See Jennifer Howard, "The Road from Disser- 
tation to Book Has a New Pothole: The Internet," Chronicle of Higher Education, 
April 3, 2011, and the discussion it triggered on the LibLicense list. 

5. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Promoting Open Access in the Humanities," Syllecta Classica, 16 (2005) 231- 



My answers to Richard Poynder's interview questions in "The Basement Inter- 
views: Peter Suber," October 19, 2007. 
- suber.html 
"Predictions for 2009," SPARC Open ACcess Newsletter, December 2, 2008. 


6. See the Open Access Directory list of publishers of OA books. 

7. For a review of this and other business models for OA books, see Janneke 
Adema, "Overview of Open Access Models for eBooks in the Humanities and 
Social Sciences," Open Access Publishing in European Networks (OAPEN), 
March 2010. 
Also see the Open Access Directory list of OA book business models. 

8. For some of the most careful empirical studies, see: 

John Hilton III, "'Freely ye have received, freely give' (Matthew 10:8): how 
giving away religious digital books influences the print sales of those books," 
Master's thesis at Brigham Young University, 2010. 

http: //search. lib. 14980 
John Hilton III, "Hard Numbers on Free Random House Books," Wide Open, 
May 6, 2009. 

John Hilton III and David Wiley, "Free: Why Authors Are Giving Books Away 
on the Internet," Tech Trends 54 (2), 2010. 
John Hilton III and David Wiley, "The Short-Term Influence of Free Digital 
Versions of Books on Print Sales," Journal of Electronic Publishing 13 (1), Winter 
Brian O'Leary, "The impact of piracy," Magellan Media, June 8, 2009. 

Oriental Institute Publications Office, "The Electronic Publications Initiative 
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago," The Oriental Institute 
of the University of Chicago, April 6, 2009. 
Springer Science+Business Media, "More than 29,000 titles now live in Google 
Book Search," press release, March 1, 2007. 

Tim O'Reilly, "Free Downloads vs. Sales: A Publishing Case Study," O'Reilly 
Radar, June 1, 2007. 
"OAPEN-UK," an ongoing experiment from JISC, October 22, 2010. 
Caren Milloy, "JISC national e-books observatory project: 2007-2010," Joint 
Information Systems Committee, 2010. 
For a more comprehensive collection of studies and observations, see the "oa. 
books. sales" tag library from the Open Access Tracking Project. 

9. National Academies Press. 
See Jensen's articles from 2001, 2005, and 2007. 

10. See the AAUP "Statement on Open Access," February 7, 2007. 
Also see its May 2011 Digital Book Publishing Survey. 

11. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Abridgment as added value," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, November 2, 2009. 

"Promoting Open Access in the Humanities," Syllecta Classica, 16 (2005) 231- 

http://dash.harvard.edU/bitstream/handle/l/4729 720/suber 
"Discovery, rediscovery, and open access. Part 1 " SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 
August 2, 2010. 


12. For more along these lines, see my article "Open access and the self-correc- 
tion of knowledge," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 2, 2008. 


13. Ten months before a massive earthquake killed 70,000 people in China's 
Sichuan Province (on May 12, 2008), an international team of scientists pub- 
lished a prediction of the quake with what National Geographic called "eerie" 
precision. However, National Geographic also notes that "there is little reason 
to believe Chinese officials were aware of the July 2007 study." One of the 
prediction coauthors, Michael Ellis of the Center for Earthquake Research and 
Information at the University of Memphis, noted that the "information was 
effectively locked in an academic journal." 
-earthquake -predicted . html 

14. See my article "Knowledge as a public good," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 
November 2, 2009. 


15. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 

"The taxpayer argument for open access," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Sep- 
tember 4, 2003. 

. htm ?sequence=l 
"Follow-up on the Federal Research Public Access Act," SPARC Open Access News- 
letter, June 2, 2006. 

My answers to Richard Poynder's interview questions in "The Basement Inter- 
views: Peter Suber," October 19, 2007. 
"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. See especially section 23. 


16. When John Jarvis was the Managing Director of Wiley Europe, he tes- 
tified before the UK Parliament's House of Commons Select Committee on 
Science and Technology in March 2004. From his response to Question 19: 
"[T]here is some evidence that some of the support for open access is coming 
from outside the research community. . . . Without being pejorative or elitist, I 
think that is an issue that we should think about very, very carefully, because 
there are very few members of the public, and very few people in this room, 
who would want to read some of this scientific information, and in fact draw 
wrong conclusions from it. ... I will say again; let us be careful because this 
rather enticing statement that everybody should be able to see everything 
could lead to chaos. Speak to people in the medical profession, and they will 
say the last thing they want are people who may have illnesses reading this 
information, marching into surgeries and asking things." 

/cmsctech/uc399-i/uc39902 .htm 
Larry Reynolds, editor in chief of the Journal of Animal Science argued in a 
March 2007 editorial that "because the public has no idea how to read, inter- 
pret, or put published science into context, immediate public access will lead 
to sensationalized use, or misuse, of science." 

http : //www. asas . o rg/bulle tin_ar ticle.asp?a=9&s=&r=3 
In a May 2007 blog post, physician R. W. Donnell accused the New England 
Journal of Medicine of "tabloid based medicine" for providing OA to an editorial 
and peer-reviewed article on the drug Avandia. The problem seems to be that 
the two OA pieces triggered "millions of Google search queries for Avandia." 

17. See Richard K. Johnson, "Will Research Sharing Keep Pace with the Inter- 
net?" The Journal of Neuroscience 26 (37) (September 13, 2006), pp. 9349-9351. 

"The large audience for freely accessible scientific knowledge maybe surprising 
to many, but the hunger for it is apparent from experience of the National 
Library of Medicine (NLM). A few years ago, NLM transformed its fee-based 
index and abstracts of biomedical journal articles to free availability on the 
Web as PubMed. Use of the database increased 100-fold once it became freely 
available. The potential scope of this usage could never have been anticipated 
by looking solely at use of the controlled-access version. Who are these new 
readers? They surely include scientists around the globe at institutions that 
may not be able to afford needed journals. They also may be researchers in 
unexpected fields, search engine users who didn't realize previously they could 
use work in a seemingly unrelated field. They may be students, patients or 
their families, physicians, community health workers, or others from the gen- 
eral public: taxpayers who finance so much biomedical research." 
As early as 2004, Donald Lindberg, then-director of the National Library of 
Medicine, reported that the NLM's OA web site had more than one million 
visitors per day and "close to a billion a year. ... A good, heavy part of that are 
consumers." Quoted in Gene Koprowski, "The Web: Patients heal themselves 
online," United Press International, August 14, 2004. 

18. For a good list of nonprofit disease advocacy organizations supporting OA 
for publicly-funded research in the United States, see the membership list of 
the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. 

19. "Large Majorities of U.S. Adults Support Easy — and Free — Online Access 
to Federally- Funded Research Findings on Health Issues and Other Topics," 
Harris Interactive , May 31, 2006. 

20. If you believe that lay readers don't care to read peer-reviewed medical 
research and couldn't understand it if they tried, and if you only have time to 
read one eye-opening testimonial, read Sharon Terry's. 


21. For more on the possibility of providing OA to some, such as the citizens 
of one country, and denying it to others, see my article "The taxpayer argument 
for open access," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, September 4, 2003. 


22. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Thoughts on first and second-order scholarly judgments," SPARC Open Access 

Newsletter, April 8, 2002. 

_thoughts .htm?sequence = 1 
My answers to James Morrison's interview questions in The Technology Source, 
September/October 2002. 
My answers to Cy Dillon's interview questions in Virginia Libraries 54 (2) 
(April/May/June 2008), pp. 7-12. 



23. On the claim that information overload didn't start with the internet, see 
Ann Blair, Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern 
Age, Yale University Press, November 2010. 

http://yalepress.yale. edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300112511 
On the claim that the size of the internet and the power of search are both 
growing quickly, see "Can search tame the wild web? Can open access help?" 
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, December 2, 2005. 

. htm ?sequence=l 

24. Clay Shirky, "It's Not Information Overload. It's Filter Failure," Web 2.0 
Expo NY, September 16-19, 2008. 

25. Also see Clifford Lynch, "Open Computation: Beyond Human-Reader- 
Centric Views of Scholarly Literatures," Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and 
Economic Aspects , Neil Jacobs (ed.), Chandos Publishing, 2006, pp. 185-193. 

"Traditional open access is, in my view, a probable (but not certain) prerequisite 

for the emergence of fully developed large-scale computational approaches to 
the scholarly literature." 

Chapter 6 

1. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 
"Open Access Overview." 

view, htm? sequence=l 
"The mandates of January," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, February 2, 2008. 
"A bill to overturn the NIH policy," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 

"A field guide to misunderstandings about open access," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, April 2, 2009. 

guide. html?sequence=l 

2. See the OAD list of publisher policies on NIH-funded authors. 

3. The bill was the so-called Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, introduced 
by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in September 2008 and again in the next session 
of Congress in February 2009. In both cases it died without a vote. See my 
articles on each introduction of the bill: 

"A bill to overturn the NIH policy," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 

"Re-introduction of the bill to kill the NIH policy " SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 
March 2, 2009. 


4. However, as we've seen (in section 3.3 on gratis/libre) most OA journals 
still settle for gratis OA even though they could just as easily obtain the rights 

5. See L. Ray Patterson, "A Response to Mr. Y'Barbo's Reply," Journal of Intel- 
lectual Property Law 5 (1997). 

Chapter 7 

1. This section borrows from several of my previous publications: 

"No-fee open-access journals," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, November 2, 2006. 
"Good facts, bad predictions," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 2, 2006. 
"Will open access undermine peer review?" SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Sep- 
tember 2, 2007. 

"Ten challenges for open-access journals," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Oc- 
tober 2, 2009. 

http://dash.harvard.edU/bitstream/handle/l/431613 1/suber 

2. See John Houghton and Peter Sheehan, "The Economic Impact of En- 
hanced Access to Research Findings," Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, 
Victoria University Working Paper No. 23, July 2006. 
John Houghton, Colin Steele, and Peter Sheehan, "Research Communication 
Costs in Australia: Emerging Opportunities and Benefits," Australia's Depart- 
ment of Education, Science and Training, September 2006. 
Also see Alma Swan's February 2010 study, based on Houghton's model, of the 
costs and benefits of OA policies at universities. 


Also see Stevan Hamad's March 2010 article building on Houghton's finding 
that the economic benefits of green OA exceed the costs more than fortyfold. 
For Houghton's other studies on the economic impact of OA policies, see the 
home page for his research project on the Economic Implications of Alternative 
Scholarly Publishing Models (EI-ASPM). 
For the publisher critique of Houghton's research, see the two joint state- 
ments by the Publishers Association (PA), the Association of Learned and 
Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), and the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), both dated February 2009. 

/pa- alpsp-stm_joint_statement.pdf 
Also see the STM press release, with links to related documents, "STM chal- 
lenges JISC over validity of latest open access advocacy," April 2010. 



For the major replies to the publisher critiques, see the replies from JISC (un- 
dated but c. April 2009) and Houghton himself (January 2010). 


Oppenheim) .pdf 

3. See "Heading for the Open Road: Costs and Benefits of Transitions in Schol- 
arly Communications," Research Information Network, April 7, 2011. 

4. Charles W. Bailey Jr., Karen Coombs, Jill Emery, Anne Mitchell, Chris Mor- 
ris, Spencer Simons, and Robert Wright, "Institutional Repositories," ARL 
SPEC Kit 292, July, 2006. "Implementers [of repositories at ARL libraries] 
report a range of start-up costs from $8,000 to $1,800,000, with a mean of 
$182,550 and a median of $45,000. . . . The range for ongoing operations bud- 
gets for implementers is $8,600 to $500,000, with a mean of $113,543 and 
median of $41,750." 

An informal 2005 survey by Rebecca Kemp found that the costs of setting up a 
repository ranged from $5,770 (CILEA) to $1,706,765 (Cambridge University) 
and that yearly maintenance ranged from $36,000 (National University of Ire- 
land) to $285,000 (MIT). 

In 2001, Caltech reported that its set-up costs were less than $1,000. 



5. For more on the "some pay for all" business models, see "Four analogies to 
clean energy," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, February 2, 2010. 


6. For details on the variety of business models for OA journals, see the Open 
Access Directory list of OA journal business models. 
Also see Raym Crow, "Income Models for Supporting Open Access," SPARC, 
October 2009. 

7. Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen et al., "Highlights from the SOAP (Study of Open 
Access Publishing) project survey. What Scientists Think about Open Access 
Publishing," arXiv, January 28, 2011. "In total 89% of published researchers 
answering to the survey thought that journals publishing open access articles 
were beneficial for their field. When analysed by discipline, this fraction was 
higher than 90% in most of the humanities and social sciences, and oscillat- 
ing around 80% for Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics, Engineering and related 

8. On the percentage of OA journals charging author-side fees, see Stuart 
Shieber, "What percentage of open-access journals charge publication fees?" 
The Occasional Pamphlet, May 29, 2009. 
On the percentage of TA journals charging author-side fees, see Cara Kaufman 
and Alma Wills, "The Facts about Open Access," Association of Learned and 
Professional Society Publishers, 2005. asp?id=200&did=47&aid=2 


On the percentage of authors paying fees out of pocket at fee-based OA jour- 
nals, see Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen et al., "Highlights from the SOAP project 
survey. What Scientists Think about Open Access Publishing," a preprint on 
deposit in arXiv, January 28, 2011, p. 9, table 4. 
Also see my two articles on no-fee OA journals: 

"Good facts, bad predictions," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 2, 2006. 
"No-fee open-access journals," SPARC Operz Access News/etter, November 2, 2006. 

9. See Anuar Bin Shafiei, "An exploratory study into an intermediary service 
organisation handling author fees on behalf of academic libraries," Pleiade 
Management & Consultancy, October 15, 2010. See section 4.4. 100 percent 
of responding members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association 
(OASPA) who published fee-based OA journals, surveyed in July-August 2010, 
offered some kind of fee waivers. 91 percent prevented editors from knowing 
about fee-waiver requests during peer review. 

10. For a more detailed response to these calculations, see "Good facts, bad 
predictions," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 2, 2006. 


. htm ?sequence=l 
Today, not only do 70 percent of OA journals charge no author-side fees (see 
Shieber in note 8), but 59 percent of fees paid at fee-based journals are paid 
by funding agencies and only 24 percent by universities (see Suenje Dallmeier- 
Tiessen et al. in note 7). 

11. Many of the funds set up by universities to pay publication fees on behalf 
of faculty refuse to pay fees at double-dipping hybrid journals. For example, 
the fund at the University of Calgary will only pay fees at hybrid journals "that 
reduce subscription fees in response to the take-up of their Open Access pro- 
grams. . . ." 
-fund/open-access-authors-fund- frequently-asked- que stions-faq#4 

Funds at many other institutions will not pay fees at any hybrid journals. For 
example, see Harvard's HOPE (Harvard Open-Access Publishing Equity) fund, 
http : //os c . hul . harvard . e du/hop e 

12. On the AAP/PSP figures, see John Tagler, "From the Executive Director's 
Desk," Professional Scholarly Publishing Bulletin, Spring 2011. Tagler notes that 

"the two largest open access publishers did not submit data on their publishing 
programs so the analysis covers open access patterns across a universe where 
paid circulation, rather than [an OA business model], is the principal source 
of revenue." 
See the SHERPA list of hybrid journal publishers. When I checked it April 29, 
2011, it listed 91 journal publishers, including all of the largest. 
"Report from the SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) Symposium," Janu- 
ary 2011. 

13. See "Open access in 2006," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, January 2, 2007. 


The hybrid OA landscape hasn't changed much since January 2007, when I 

summarized the situation this way: 

Some hybrid programs are good-faith, even optimistic experiments; 
some look grudging or cynical. Some charge low fees and let participat- 
ing authors retain copyright; some charge high fees and still demand 
the copyright. Some provide OA to the full published edition, some 
only to an enfeebled truncation stripped of active links. Some reduce 
subscription prices in proportion to author uptake; some use a frank 
"double charge" business model. Some let authors deposit articles in 
repositories independent of the publisher; some allow free online access 
only from sites they control. Some don't try to meddle with author 
funding contracts; some charge authors who want to comply with prior 
funding obligations. Some continue to allow immediate self-archiving 
for non-participating authors; some impose embargoes or fees on self- 
archiving. The positive spin on this wide range of policies is that pub- 
lishers are fully exploring the hybrid journal space for variations that 
satisfy their constraints. I do think that's good even if I also think some 
current models are cynical or useless. To make the same point without 

the spin, some want to encourage author uptake and some don't seem 

to care as long as they have subscriptions. 

Also see "Predictions for 2006," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, December 
2, 2006. "The big question for [hybrid OA] publishers is whether they want au- 
thor uptake badly enough to make it attractive. Will the existence of subscrip- 
tion revenue as a safety net kill the incentives to make the OA option succeed?" 

Also see "Nine questions for hybrid journal programs," SPARC Open Access 
Newsletter, September 2, 2006. 


questions. htm?sequence=l 

14. BioMed Central was acquired by Springer in 2008 and remains OA and 
profitable. It also has a membership program. 
The Public Library of Science publishes seven journals; some make surpluses 
and some don't. From a financial standpoint, PLoS ONE is most successful 
and has inspired imitations from a handful of predominantly TA publishers. 

http : //www.plo s . org 
See PLoS ONE and my article on its imitators. 

http : //www.plo s one . org 
"Recent watershed events," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 2, 2011. 


MedKnow not only makes revenue from print editions but also from advertis- 
ing, association memberships, and author reprints. 

http : //www. me dkno w. co m 
Another nonprofit OA journal making a surplus is Optics Express from the Opti- 
cal Society of America. It routinely has one of the highest impact factors in its 
field and in 2006 was the most cited journal in optics. 

http : //www. opticsexpress . org 


15. On how open-source journal management software, and OJS in particular, 
reduces publication costs, see Brian D. Edgar and John Willinsky, "A Survey of 
Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal Systems," Scholarly and Research Com- 
munication, 1, 2 (April 2010). See especially table 14. 

"Over 9000 OJS Installations," Public Knowledge Project, April 6, 2011. 
See the OAD list of Free and open-source journal management software. 

16. John Houghton's research from January 2009 estimates savings from gold 
OA, not just from green OA. "For UK higher education, these journal article 
cost differences would have amounted to savings of around £80 million per 
annum circa 2007 from a shift from subscription access to open access pub- 
lishing. . . ." 

Also see Julian Fisher, "Scholarly Publishing Re-invented: Real Costs and Real 
Freedoms in the Journal of Electronic Publishing," Journal of Electronic Publish- 
ing, Spring 2008. "Deploying newly available tools and approaches to article 
production in a collaborative manner offer dramatic reductions in cost, up to 
two orders of magnitude." 
Also see Brian Edgar and John Willinsky (April 2010), ibid., table 15. Of 
surveyed OSJ-using journals, 29 percent claimed zero expenses, 20 percent 
claimed expenses between $1 and $1,000, and 31 percent claimed expenses 
between $1,001 and$10k. 44 percent operated on zero revenue, 16 percent on 
revenue between $1 and $1,000, and 24 percent on revenue between $1,001 
and $10k. 

17. Jan Velterop, post to the SSP-L discussion list August 6, 2003. Apparently 
the post is no longer online. 

18. A March 2010 study by Donald King showed that if all toll-access journals 
converted to fee-based OA, and if the average fee was $1,500, then the one- 
year cost of paying the fees for U.S. authors would be $427.5 million (or 0.76 
percent of of the U.S. R&D budget). If the average fee was $2,500, the cost 
would be $712.5 million (or 1.27% of the US R&D budget). Heather Morrison 
used King's data to calculate that the conversion could result in $3.4 billion in 
savings in the United States alone. In a follow-up report, Morrison calculated 
that the more than $2 billion profit earned by Elsevier and Lexis Nexis in 2009 

would pay for a year's worth of all the peer-reviewed journal articles published 
around world at a per-article fee of $1,383. 

19. See the Open Access Directory list of OA journal funds. 
Also see the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE), a commit- 
ment to launch a fund and persuade other institutions to follow suit. 

20. See the SC0AP3 home page. 
Peter Suber, "Eleventh hour for SC0AP3," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, De- 
cember 2, 2010. 

"SCOAP3 Global Partnership Meets and Decides to Move Forward!" SC0AP3 
press release, April 12, 2011. 

21. See "Flipping a journal to open access," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Oc- 
tober 2, 2007. 


Chapter 8 

1. This chapter borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Will open access undermine peer review?" SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Sep- 
tember 2, 2007. 

"A bill to overturn the NIH policy," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, October 2, 


2. arXiv. 

http : //arxiv. o rg 
American Physical Society (APS). 
Institute of Physics (IOP). 
APS mirror of arXiv (launched December 1999). 

http : //ap s . arxiv. org 
IOP mirror of arXiv (launched September 2006). 

http : //eprintweb . org 
See Alma Swan's interview with the APS and IOP, in which "both societies said 
they could not identify any losses of subscriptions" due to OA archiving. 

3. "NTH research: Widening access, building collaboration," The Lancet, Oc- 
tober 6, 2004. 

4. One hearing was convened by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for the House 
Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property (September 11, 2008), and the other by Rep. William Lacy Clay (D- 
MO) for the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform Sub- 
committee on Information Policy, the Census, and National Archives (July 29, 

Testimony from the 2008 hearing. 
Testimony from the 2010 hearing. 

http : //republicans . overs ight . hous e . gov/index .php?option=com 
At the 2008 hearing, the executive director of the American Physiological So- 
ciety (APS) was among the publisher-witnesses predicting that the NIH policy 
would cause cancellations. But the NIH policy allowed a twelve-month em- 
bargo, and the APS voluntarily made its own papers OA after a twelve-month 
embargo. In an interview a year later (October 2009), he conceded the lack of 
evidence. "We haven't had enough time to see an impact." 
In addition to the natural experiments resulting from the funder and univer- 
sity green OA mandates, there is a large-scale study in progress, Publishing and 
the Ecology of European Research (PEER). 

5. Steve Hitchcock, "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on ci- 
tation impact: A bibliography of studies," Open Citation Project, continually 

6. "NPG position statement on open access publishing and subscription busi- 
ness models," January 6, 2011. 

7. "Letter supporting NIH Proposal," Association of College and Research Li- 
braries, November 16, 2004. 

8. Chris Beckett and Simon Inger, "Self -Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: 
Co-existence or Competition? An International Survey of Librarians' Prefer- 
ences," Publishing Research Consortium, October 26, 2006. 
Also see Steve Hitchcock's collection of other objections to the PRC study, with 
replies from Beckett and Inger. 

9. "ALPSP survey of librarians on factors in journal cancellation," Association 
of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, March 30, 2006. 

10. On ASCB, see Jonathan B. Weitzman, "The Society Lady" (an interview 
with Elizabeth Marincola, then executive director of the ASCB), Open Access 
Now, October 6, 2003. 

On Medknow, see D. K. Sahu and Ramesh C. Parma, "Open Access in India," 
in Neil Jacobs (ed.) Open Access: Key strategic, technical, and economic aspects, 
Chandos Publishing Ltd, 2006. 

11. See the Hindawi Publishing press release, "2009: A Year of Strong Growth 
for Hindawi," January 6, 2010. 
For the rise of submissions to Hindawi journals, see this series of company 
press releases from mid-2007 to early 2011. 

12. See the Springer press release on the purchase of BMC, October 7, 2008. 

Chapter 9 

1. This section borrows from two of my previous publications: 
"Reflections on OA/TA coexistence," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, March 2, 


"Trends Favoring Open Access," CT Watch 3 (3), Fall 2007. =81. html 

2. On the dangers of thinking that if something is not free online, then it's 
not worth reading, see "The Ellen Roche story" and "Comments on the Ellen 
Roche Story," both in the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter, August 23, 2001. 



3. How can we reconcile unanimous faculty votes for strong OA policies with 
the evidence that faculty have been slow to pay attention to OA and under- 
stand it? See "Unanimous faculty votes," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, June 
2, 2010. 

Campuses where faculty members vote unanimously for OA policies . . . 
are not random exceptions to this current trend. They are cultivated 
exceptions to this current trend. More, they are gradually reversing the 
trend itself. They are campuses where policy proponents have carefully 
educated their colleagues about the issues and patiently answered 
their questions, objections, and misunderstandings. . . . One lesson: If 

your campus is considering an OA policy, be patient. Let the education 
process take as long as it takes. . . . 


Chapter 10 

1. The Directory of Open Access Journals. 

2. See the Open Access Directory list of OA journal funds. 

http ://oad. simmons . edu/oadwiki/OA_j ournal_f unds 

3. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). See especially the 
OASPA membership list and code of conduct. 

4. See the SHERPA RoMEO database. 

5. See the Open Access Directory list of author addenda. 

6. See the Registry of Open Access Repositories, the Directory of Open Access 
Repositories, and the Open Access Directory list of Disciplinary Repositories. 

http : //roar, eprints . o rg 

http : //www. opendoar. org 

7. See OpenDepot, OpenAire, Academia, and Mendeley. 

http : //op endep ot . org 
http : //www. mendeley. com 

8. See the Open Access Directory list of data repositories. 
Also see the list from DataCite, the British Library, BioMed Central, and the 
Digital Curation Centre. 


More About OA Itself 

Open Access Directory (OAD). A wiki I co-founded with Robin Peek in April 

http ://oad. simmons . edu 

Also see these major lists from the OAD (among other OAD lists in separate 
categories below): 

• Events 

• OA by the numbers 

• Timeline 

Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS). A compendium of 
practical steps for implementing OA, from Leslie Chan and Alma Swan. 

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP). A real-time alert service I launched in 
April 2009. 

More on Green OA (OA through Repositories) 

Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDoar). With ROAR, one of the 
two major lists of OA repositories. 

Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) . With OpenDoar, one of the two 
major lists of OA repositories, 
http ://roar. eprint s . org/ 

Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROAR- 
MAP). The best list of green OA policies at funding agencies and universities. 

SHERPA RoMEO. The best database of journal publisher policies on OA ar- 

More on Gold OA (OA through Journals) 

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The best directory of quality-con- 
trolled OA journals. 

OA journal business models. A list from the Open Access Directory. 

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). The professional as- 
sociation of OA publishers. 

More on OA Advocacy 

Advocacy organizations for OA. A list from the Open Access Directory. 

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). A major OA 
advocacy organization in the US. 

Also see the SPARC spinoff, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA). A major 
voice for OA in Congress. 

Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS). A major advocacy organization for univer- 
sity OA policies. 

More of My Own Work on OA 

Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP). My current home and major affiliation 
since July 2011. 

Open Access Overview. My brief introduction to OA, in English and several 
other languages. 

Very Brief Introduction to Open Access. My briefer introduction, in English 
and many other languages. 


Open Access News (OAN). My blog on OA from May 2002 to April 2010. It 
remains online with a searchable archive. 

I currently blog at Google+, mostly on OA. 

SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN). My newsletter on OA, since March 

Writings on Open Access. A bibliography of my major pieces on OA. 

Additional Reading 

Bailey, Jr., Charles W. 2010. Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open 
Access: A Bibliography. Digital Scholarship. Available in OA and print editions. 

Also see the Bibliography of open access, a wiki-based descendant of the 2005 
edition of Bailey's bibliography, hosted at the Open Access Directory and cre- 
ated with Bailey's generous permission. 

Please also see Peter Suber's online page of updates and supplements to this 



Academia (the networking and 

repository service), 173, 218n7 
Academic freedom, 10, 13, 14, 23, 
55, 59, 63, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91, 
93, 163, 192-193n4 
Access. See also Digital divide; 
Harm to research or research- 
ers; Knowledge; Lay readers; 
Libraries; Machines; Open 
access; Open-access journals and 
publishers; Repositories; Toll- 
access (or conventional) journals 
and publishers 
barriers, 4-5, 7, 22, 26, 30-43, 

100, 117 
gaps, 4, 19, 30, 40, 42, 43, 

116-117, 119 
permission barriers, 5-9, 26-27, 
34-35, 37, 50, 65-66, 115, 122, 
125, 145, 184nll, 191n21 
price barriers, 4-8, 25, 26-27, 
29-35, 37, 41-42, 65-66, 115, 
revolution in, 1-2, 20 
for scholarly purposes, 5-6, 8, 

universal, 26-27 
unmet demand, 116-117, 119, 
Adema, Janneke, 200n7 
Ad Hoc Committee on Fair Use and 

Academic Freedom, 191n20 
Advertising, 16-17, 135-137 
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, 118 

Alberti, Fay Bound, xi 
Alemayehu, Muluken Wubayehu, 

Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA), 

204nl8, 220 
American Association of University 

Presses (AAUP), 110, 210nl0 
American Physical Society (APS), 

151, 215n2 
American Physiological Society 

(APS),178n6, 215n4 
American Scientist Open Access 

forum, 180n7 
American Society for Cell Biology 

(ASCB), 159 
Arcadia, xi 
Arizona State University, 192n3, 

Arthritis Research Campaign, 195n9 
Articles. See Journals (in general); 

Postprints; Preprints; Versions 
Artificial scarcity, 37, 48 
Arts, 30, 97 
ArXiv, 57, 150-151, 188n7, 209n7, 

215n2. See also Green OA (OA 

through repositories); Physics; 

Association of American Publishers 

(AAP), 152 
Association of College and Research 

Libraries (ACRL), 157, 216n7 
Association of Learned and 

Professional Society Publishers 

(ALPSP), 207-208n2, 216n9 

Association of Research Libraries 

(ARL), 178n4, 181n2, 182n7, 

183nn9-10, 208n4 
Attribution, 7, 8, 23, 69. See also 

Australian National University, 

Authors. See also Attribution; 

Career-building for faculty; 

Copyright; Impact; Prestige; 

Researchers; Royalties; Waivers 
author addenda, 172 
books and, 106-111 
citations and, 15-16, 50, 102, 145, 

control growth of OA, 77-78, 

freed from market pressures by 

salaries, 2-4, 12-14, 17 
interests in OA, 15-16 
not paid for their journal articles, 

2-4, 9-10, 12, 17, 21, 37, 38, 44, 

64, 106-107, 111, 116, 130, 132 
rights retention and, 22-23, 

80-83, 87, 90, 93, 126-129, 149 
sales and, 1, 5, 12-13, 15, 

107-110, 129-130 

Bailey, Charles W., Jr., 177nl, 

208n4, 221 
Baldwin, Peter, xi 
Balkin, Jack, xi 
Bauerlein, Mark, 181n2 
Beckett, Chris, 157, 216n8 
Bennett, Douglas, xi-xii 
Bergstrom, Carl, 184nl5 
Bergstrom, Ted, 183n9, 184nl5 
Berkman Center, 197-199n20 

Berlin Declaration on Open Access 
to Knowledge in the Sciences 
and Humanities, 7-8, 71, 177nl 
Bethesda Statement on Open Access 

Publishing, 7-8, 71, 177nl 
Bing, 56. See also Search and search 

Bin Shafiei, Anuar, 210n9 
BioMed Central, 160, 212nl4, 

Bjornshauge, Lars, 191n20 
Blogs, 49, 69, 100, 114, 163-164. 

See also Social media 
Books, 17, 33, 49, 98-99, 106-112. 
See also Digitization; Print 
ebook readers (hardware), 107, 

experiments with OA books, 108, 
109, 110, 200n7, 200-201n8, 
green OA, 136 
growth of OA books, 110, 

monograph crisis, 33, 183- 

OA editions sometimes boost 
net sales of print editions, 107, 
109-110, 200-201n8, 201n9 
royalties and, 106-108 
superseded by journals as the pri- 
mary literature of science, 102 
textbooks, 17, 98 
Bosch, Stephen, 181n2, 182n7 
Boycotts, 24-25 
British Library, 218n8 
Brown, Sheridan, 196nl6 
Brunei University, 193n5 
Budapest Open Access Initiative, 7, 
19, 71, 177nl, 180n9 

Business models. See Artificial 
scarcity; Funding; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Revenue; Subsidies; Toll-access 
(or conventional) journals and 

California Institute of Technology 
(Caltech), 208-209n4 

Cambridge University, 208-209n4 

Cancer Research UK, 195n9 

Career-building for faculty, 12-13, 
15, 16, 60, 130. See also Attribu- 
tion; Authors; Impact; Prestige; 
Promotion and tenure 

Carnegie Mellon University, 192n3 

Censorship, 26 

Center for Earthquake Research and 
Information, 202nl3 

Centre for Research Communica- 
tions, 195n9 

Chan, Leslie, 219 

Charities, 14, 83-85, 160 

Citations. See Attribution; Impact 

Clark, Len, xii 

Clarke, Roger, 185nl6 

Clay, William Lacy, 215n4 

College of Mount Saint Vincent, 

Compact for Open-Access Publish- 
ing Equity (COPE), 214nl9 

Concordia University, 194n5 

Congress, 72, 152 

Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche 
Nudeaire (CERN), 146-147. See 
also Sponsoring Consortium 
for Open Access Publishing in 
Particle Physics SCOAP3 

Consorzio Interuniversitario 
Lombardo per l'Elaborazione 
Automatica (CILEA), 208-209n4 
Contracts, 23, 33, 68, 83-88, 129, 

172, 196nl5 
Conventional journals and publish- 
ers. See Toll-access (or conven- 
tional) journals and publishers 
Conyers, John, 206n3, 215n4 
Coombs, Karen, 208n4 
Copyright, 5, 129-132. See also 
Access; Attribution; Fair use; 
Libre OA; Licenses; Mandates; 
Misunderstandings; Permission; 
Policies; Public domain; Waivers 

abolition of, 21 

all-rights-reserved, 67-70, 72-73 

author control of, 9, 77-78 

Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) 
statements and, 7-8, 19, 71 

copyright holder consent, 9, 21, 
22, 68, 125 

derivative works, 8, 69, 74 

expiration of, 69 

as incentive for author productiv- 
ity, 129-132 

limited role for, 7-8 

protects publishers more than 
authors, 5, 130 

protects revenue, 125, 126, 130 

publishers and, 5, 9, 34, 39, 58-60, 
125-132, 156 

reform of, 21,44, 132, 166 

rights retention and, 80-83, 87, 
90, 93, 126-129, 149 

as temporary government-granted 
monopoly, 39 

toll-access journals and, 125-126, 

Copyright (cont.) 
transfers of, 5, 9, 23, 53, 68, 105, 

125-126, 129, 130, 173 
U.S. statute, 65-66 
Creative Commons, 68-69, 72-73, 

190nl6, 191n20. See also Libre 

OA; Licenses 
Credit Suisse First Boston, 

Crow, Raym, 209n6 
Cultural obstacles, 9, 111-112, 

Cuplinskas, Darius, xii 
Current awareness, 35, 122 
Custom, 2, 4, 10, 20 
Cystinosis Research Network, 118 

Dallmeier-Tiessen, Suenje, 209- 

Dark deposits, 52, 79, 81-82. See 
also Green OA (OA through 
repositories); Repositories 

Darnton, Robert, xi, 182n5 

DataCite, 218n8 

Data Conversion Laboratory, xi 

Davis, Crispin, 43, 186n21 

Davis, Philip M, 178n6 

Deposits. See Green OA; Reposi- 

Developing countries, 30-32, 73, 97 

Digital Curation Centre, 218n8 

Digital divide, 27 

Digital rights management (DRM), 

Digitization, 35, 52, 60, 98, 99, 
111, 136, 174, 190nl7. See also 
Books; Print 

Dillon, Cy, 205n22 

Directory of Open Access Jour- 
nals (DOAJ), 72, 169, 182n3, 
191n20, 218nl, 220 

Directory of Open Access Reposito- 
ries, 188n6, 218n6, 219 

Disney, 183n8 

Donnell, R. W., 203nl6 

Dublinlnstituteof Technology, 193n5 

Duke University, 194n7 

Earlham College, xi 

Economic Implications of Alterna- 
tive Scholarly Publishing Models 
(EI-ASPM), 207-208n2 

Edgar, Brian, 212-213nnl5-16 

Edinburgh Napier University, 

Edith Cowan University, 193n5 

Editors. See also Peer review; 
generally not paid by journals, 
journal quality and, 171 
peer review and, 19-20, 25, 37, 44, 
64, 103-104, 139-140, 170 

EUis, Michael, 202nl3 

Elsevier, 32, 33, 43, 126, 152, 
183nn8-9, 213nl8 

Embargoes, 60, 65, 79, 80, 110, 140, 
154, 155, 159 

Emery, Jill, 208n4 

Emory University, 192n3 

Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS), 

EPrints repository, 194n8 

European Commission for the Digi- 
tal Agenda, 180nl2 

ExxonMobil, 183n8 

Fair Copyright in Research Works 

Act, 206n3 
Fair use, 65-68, 69, 70, 73-75, 
191n21. See also Copyright; 
Libre OA 
four characteristics relevant to 

OA, 65-66 
judgment calls and, 35, 70, 74-75 
U.S. law on, 65-66, 190nl3 
Fear, 17, 20, 37, 60, 74, 88, 104, 

105, 139, 158-160, 165, 191n21 
Fisher, Julian, 213nl6 
Frankel, Simon, 194n7 
Fry, Jenny, 189n9 

Funding, 37-39, 80, 83, 88-89, 142, 
152, 156-157, 170 
charitable, 14, 83-85, 160 
funding contracts, 83, 87-88, 129 
grants and, 13-14, 23, 80-84, 88, 

National Institutes of Health 
(NIH) and, 80, 83-88, 126, 128, 
public funding, 14, 38-39, 83, 97, 

116, 118, 133, 160 
redirection of funds from toll- 
access to OA, 145-147 
research and, 37-39, 80, 83, 

88-89, 142, 152, 156-157, 170 
Wellcome Trust and, 80, 83, 85, 
87, 134, 150 
Funding agencies. See also Funding; 
Mandates; National Institutes of 
Health (NIH); Policies; Research 
Councils UK; Wellcome Trust 
OA policies, 54, 71, 72, 77-78, 80, 
83-84, 89, 94, 126, 128, 129, 
149-150, 155-157, 165, 172 

paying publication fees, 136, 139, 

private, 14, 83-85, 160 
public, 14, 38-39, 83, 97, 116, 

118, 133, 160 
as stakeholders, x, 77-78, 165 
upstream from publishers, 129 
value adders, 37 

Gargouri, Yassine, 178n6 
Gasser, Urs, xii 

Gates Foundation, 197-198n20 
Gifts and gift culture, 14, 19, 38, 

116, 196nl5 
Gold OA (OA through journals), 6, 
18, 53. See also Green OA (OA 
through repositories); Libre OA; 
Misunderstandings; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Peer review 
additional resources for, 220 
advantages over green OA, 60-62, 

65, 137 
complementary with green OA, 

gratis and libre OA, 53, 60-62, 67, 

72-73, 129, 207n4 
making your own work gold OA, 

myths about, 137-140, 192- 

policies and, 77-79, 83-84, 91-93, 
Google, 56. See also Search and 

search engines 
Gratis OA, 65-75. See also Libre OA 
attainability of, 71-73, 191nl9 
books and, 111 
disparagement of, 73 

Gratis OA (cont.) 
fair use and, 66-67, 71-73 
gold OA and, 67 
green OA and, 67, 71 
success stories, 71-72 
Gray, Jim, 112 
Green OA (OA through repositories), 

6, 18, 53. See also Academic 

freedom; ArXiv; Dark deposits; 

Embargoes; Fear; Gold OA (OA 

through journals); Mandates; 

Misunderstandings; Policies; 

Postprints; Preprints; Prestige; 

Repositories; Self-archiving 
additional resources on, 219 
advantages over gold OA, 59-60 
compatible with publishing in a 

toll-access journal, 54-56, 57, 

59-60, 71, 84, 126, 154-155, 

171, 172, 188n4 
complementary with gold OA, 

costs, 51, 53, 59, 62, 134, 136, 

gratis and libre OA, 53, 60-62, 67, 

71-72, 90-91, 93, 197-198n20 
journal cancellations and, 62-65, 

libraries and, 155-157 
making your own work green OA, 

mandates and, 54, 58-59, 63, 

78-79, 84, 90-91, 93, 150-156 
peer review and, 59, 63-64, 72, 

102, 126, 171-174 
permission and, 54, 57, 65, 100, 

154-155, 172-174 
physics and, 150-151 

policies and, 59, 77-79, 83-84, 93, 

149, 161 
waivers and, 155 
Guedon, Jean-Claude, 178n4 

Haank, Derk, 160 

Hagemann, Melissa, xii 

Handicapped users, 27 

Harm to research or researchers, 4, 

5, 19, 30, 32, 34-35, 70, 74-75, 

91, 99, 112, 138, 139 
Hamad, Stevan, 16, 53, 178-179n6, 

193n6, 207-208n2 
Harris poll, 118 
Harvard Open Access Project 

(HOAP), 220 
Harvard Open-Access Publishing 

Equity (HOPE), 210-211nll 
Harvard University, xi, 30-31, 

80-82, 87-88, 149-150, 182n5, 

194n7, 197-198n20 
Henderson, Kittie, 181n2, 182n7 
Hess, Charlotte, 178n3 
Hilton, John, III, 200-201n8 
Hindawi, Ahmed, 159 
Hindawi Publishing, 159-160, 

Hitchcock, Steve, 178n6, 216n5, 

Houghton, John, 133, 207-208n2, 

House Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Prop- 
erty, 215n4 
Howard, Jennifer, 199-200n4 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 

Humanities, 7, 33, 97, 114-115, 144 

Hybrid journals, 140-142, 

210-211nll, 211-212nl3. See 
also Journals (in general); Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Toll-access (or conventional) 
journals and publishers 

Impact. See also Attribution; 
Authors; Career-building for 
faculty; Citations; Prestige 

citation impact, 15-16, 50, 102, 
145, 154, 178-179n6, 187n2, 

writing for impact rather than 
money, 2, 10, 38, 130 
Incentives, 2, 15-17, 19, 57, 60, 
86, 111, 121-122, 129-131, 
139, 155-157. See also Authors; 
Career-building for faculty; Im- 
pact; Libraries; Mandates; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Policies; Prestige; Researchers; 
Revenue; Toll-access (or conven- 
tional) journals and publishers 

for authors to make their work 
OA, 15-17, 29-48, 57, 60, 78, 

for authors to publish in certain 
journals, 60 

for authors to write, 2, 12-13, 15, 
19, 129-131 

for developers to create tools 
optimized for OA literature, 

for editors and referees to partici- 
pate in peer review, 19 

for funding agencies and universi- 
ties to adopt OA policies, 14, 

for libraries to cancel toll-access 

journals, 30-32, 157-159 
for libraries to subscribe to toll- 
access journals, 155-157 
for publishers to lower their stan- 
dards, 40, 139 
for publishers to make their work 

OA, 121-122, 145, 159 
for search engines to index OA 
repositories, 57 
Indian Institute of Science, 30 
Information overload, 120-121, 

Ingelfinger rule, 173 
Ingenta, 147 
Inger, Simon, 157, 216n8 
Institute of Physics (IOP), 151, 215n2 
International Association of Sci- 
entific, Technical and Medical 
Publishers (STM), 184nl2, 
International Center for Tropical 

Agriculture, 195-196nl2 
International Communication As- 
sociation, 191n20 
International Conference on Elec- 
tronic Theses and Dissertations, 
Internet, 1, 7, 9, 109 
access to, 7, 25, 48, 116 (see also 

Digital divide) 
Budapest Open Access Initiative 

and, 19 
generational change and, 164-165 
makes OA possible, 1, 9, 19-20 
peer review and, 165-166 
widens distribution and reduces 
costs, 44 
ISI Citation Database, 187n2 

Jacobs, Neil, 205n25, 216nl0 

Jarvis, John, 203nl6 

Jefferson, Thomas, 46 

Jensen, Michael, 109-110, 210n9 

Johnson, Richard, xii, 204nl7 

Joint Information Systems Commit- 
tee (JISC), 134 

Joseph, Heather, xii 

Journalism and journalists, 130, 
137. See also Newspapers 

Journals (in general). See also 
Hybrid journals; Open-access 
journals and publishers; Peer 
review; Prestige; Toll-access 
(or conventional) journals and 
evolution of, 49, 64 
four functions of, 62 
generally don't pay authors, edi- 
tors, or referees, 2-4, 9-10, 12, 
17-18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 37, 38, 
44, 64, 106-107, 111, 116, 130, 
132, 142 
journal articles as distinct from 
other genres, 2, 9-10, 12, 17, 21, 
86, 106, 107, 111, 130, 132 
origin of, 10, 102 

Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie, 

Kaufman, Cara, 209n8 
Kemp, Rebecca, 208-209n4 
Kiley, Robert, xii 
King, Donald, 213nl8 
Klusendorf, Heather, 181n2 
Knowledge, 14, 41, 46, 112-113, 
116. See also Research 
growth of published, 41-43, 64 
as nonrivalrous, 45-46, 48 

as public good, 116, 143 
research and, 43, 112-114 (see 
also Research) 

Koprowski, Gene, 204nl7 

Kriegsman, Sue, xii 

Kroes, Neelie, 180nl2 

Lancet, The (journal), 152 
Lange, John, 13 
Language barriers, 27 
Lay readers, 25-26, 115-119, 
203nl6, 204nl7, 204n20. See 
also Researchers 
Lexis Nexis, 213nl8 
Libraries. See also Incentives; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Researchers; Toll-access (or 
conventional) journals and 
publishers; Universities 
access and, 5, 30, 35, 40-41, 48, 

119, 147, 155-157 
bargaining power of, 32 
big deals and bundling, 32-33, 145 
boycotts and, 25 
budgets of, 5, 29-35, 42, 43, 65, 
145-147, 160, 181n2, 186n21 
collections of, 52, 111 
online vs. print books in, 111 
permission barriers affecting, 

price barriers affecting, 4-5, 35, 42 
public libraries, 119 
research and, 30-32, 35, 40-41, 

141, 146, 157, 160 
as stakeholders, x, 41 
Libre OA, 65-75. See also Copy- 
right; Creative Commons; Fair 
use; Gratis OA; Licenses; Public 

advantages of, 5-6, 73-75 
attainability of, 71-73, 90-91, 

Creative Commons and, 68-70 
definition of OA and, 8, 71 
gold OA and, 53, 67 
green OA and, 62, 67, 90-91, 93, 

licenses and, 66-70, 74-75 
mandates and, 72, 90-91, 93 
neglect of, 50, 53, 62, 67, 72-73 
permission and, 6, 8, 50, 53, 

65-70, 73-75 
Licenses, 67-70. See also Copyright; 

Creative Commons; Libre OA 
"all rights reserved" and, 67-70, 

copyright and, 4, 8, 67-70 (see also 

creating your own, 70 
Creative Commons and, 68-70, 

legal fees and, 143 
libre OA and, 66, 69-70, 74-75 
open, 23, 68-75, 165 
Lindberg, Donald, 204nl7 
Lynch, Clifford, 205n25 

Machines. See also Processing; 

Search and search engines; Text 
access for, 115, 120-123, 205n25 
machine -readable licenses, 70 

Macquarie University, 193n5 

Malmo University, 193n5 

Mandates. See also Academic 
freedom; Copyright; Funding 
agencies; Green OA (OA through 
repositories); Misunderstand- 

ings; Policies; Terminology; 
Theses and dissertations; Unani- 
mous faculty votes; Universities; 

academic freedom and, 23, 55, 59, 
63, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91, 93 
(see also Academic freedom) 

contrasted with mere requests or 
encouragement, 78, 88 

definition, 78, 85, 86-90 (see also 

deposit mandates, 79-82, 86-87, 

at funding agencies, 54, 71, 72, 
77-78, 80, 83-84, 89, 94, 126, 
128, 129, 149-150, 155-157, 
165, 172, 195nn9-ll (see also 
Funding agencies) 

gratis and libre OA and, 90-91, 93 

green OAand, 54, 58-59, 63, 
78-79, 84, 90-91, 93, 150-156 

Harvard-style, 80-82, 87-88, 

historical timing and, 90-95 

libraries and, 155-157 

loophole mandates, 79-82, 87, 
149, 155, 193n5 

no gold OA mandates, 55, 78-79, 
91-93, 192-193n4 

not mandatory without qualifica- 
tion, 81, 84-87, 149-150 

policies and, 54, 58-59, 63, 78-95, 
149-157, 174 

rights -retention mandates, 80-83, 
87, 90, 93, 126-129, 149, 194n7 

three basic types, 79-81 

at universities, 79-90, 96, 149 (see 
also Universities) 

Markets, 10, 12, 13, 38-39, 41, 44, 
130, 184nl4. See also Mo- 
nopolies and anti-competitive 

Massachusetts Institute of Technol- 
ogy (MIT), 82, 181n2, 194n7 

McAfee, Preston, 183n9, 184nl5 

McMillan, Gail, 199n4 

McPherson, Isaac, 46 

McPherson, James, 33, 138nl0 

McVeigh, Marie E, 187n2 

Medknow, 159, 212nl4, 216nl0 

Mendeley, 173, 218n7 

Merck Company Foundation, 

Metadata, 81-82, 110 

Milloy, Caren, 200-201n8 

Minho University, 194n8 

Misunderstandings, x, 52, 54, 55, 
56, 58, 71, 72, 88, 89, 99-100, 
103, 111, 137-140, 163-168, 
189n9, 192-193n4, 217n3 

Mitchell, Anne, 208n4 

Molecular Biology of the Cell (journal), 

Monographs. See Books 

Monopolies and anti-competitive 
practices, 32, 33, 38, 39-40, 130 
(see also Markets) 

Moral hazard, 41, 185nl8 

Morris, Chris, 208n4 

Morris, Sally, 184nl5 

Morrison, Heather, 213nl8 

Morrison, James, 205n22 

Movies and moviemakers, 8, 9, 
12-13, 20 

Music and musicians, 8, 9, 12-13, 20 

Napier University, 195-196nl2 

National Academies Press, 109-110, 

National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
See also Funding; Funding agen- 
cies; Mandates 
copyright and, 126, 128 
green OA and, 150, 152, 155, 157 
OA (or "public access") policy, 72, 
80, 83-88, 126, 128, 150, 180nl, 
188n4, 191nl9, 195nn9-10, 
197nl9, 206nl, 206n3, 214nl, 
215nn3-4, 216n7 

National Library of Medicine, 117, 

National Science Laboratory, China, 

National University of Ireland, 

Nature Publishing Group (NPG), 
154-155, 216n6 

Neston, Shannon, 194n7 

Newspapers, 98. See also Journalism 
and journalists 

Next Generation Learning Chal- 
lenges, 197-198n20 

Nonrivalrous property, 45-48 

Novels and novelists, 9, 12-13, 17, 
98, 130-131 

Oberlin College, 194n7 

Office of System wide Library Plan- 
ning, 181n2 

O'Leary, Brian, 200-201n8 

Onsrud, Harlan, xii 

Open access. See also Access; Gold 
OA (through journals); Gratis 
OA; Green OA (through reposi- 
tories); Impact; Libre OA; Open- 
access journals and publishers 

benefits, ix, 5-6, 15-16, 24, 26, 
102, 114-115, 117-118, 122, 
133, 137, 145, 178-179n6 

definition, 4, 7-8 

disciplinary differences and, 64, 
97, 119, 137, 142, 144, 151-152, 

economic benefit-cost ratios, 
107-108, 133-134, 207-208n2 

goal constructive, not destruc- 
tive, 24 

growth of, 8, 77, 144, 177-178n2 

objections to, 37-38, 116, 117, 
133, 139, 140, 144, 149-161 

scope of, 9, 17, 97-124 

as seizing opportunities, 20, 

as solving problems, 29-43, 167 

transition to, 8-9, 18, 62-63, 133, 
140, 145-147, 149, 163-168 

vehicles for, 6, 49, 67 

what it is not, 20-27 
Open Access Directory (OAD), 170, 
188n4, 188n6, 195nl0, 197nl7, 
200nn6-7, 206n2, 209n6, 
214nl9, 218n2, 218nn5-6, 
218n8, 219-221 
Open-access journals and publish- 
ers. See also Funding; Gold OA 
(through journals); Gratis OA; 
Impact; Journals; Libre OA; Peer 
review; Prestige; Publishing (in 
general); Repositories; Societies, 
scholarly; Sustainability; Toll- 
access (or conventional) journals 
and publishers 

business models, 18-19, 37-38, 
49, 53, 103, 110, 136-143, 170, 

costs, 18, 21-22, 47, 53, 136, 

142-144, 166 
fee-based OA journals, 136, 138- 
142, 145-147, 170, 209-210n8, 
for-profit, 18-19, 38, 50, 62, 142, 

167, 212nl4 
libre OA, 50, 53, 60-62, 67, 72-73 
newer than toll-access journals, 50, 

170, 171, 187n3 
no-fee OA journals, 136-137, 140, 

142, 170, 171, 209-210n8 
nonprofit, 50, 142, 212nl4 
quality, 19, 33, 39, 40, 49-50, 
54, 100, 104, 105, 117-118, 
139, 143, 144, 145, 160, 167, 
169-170, 171, 185nl7 
submissions, 15, 91, 93, 145, 159, 
170, 216-217nll 
Open Access News (OAN), 221 
Open Access Publishing in European 

Networks (OAPEN), 200n7 
Open Access Scholarly Information 

Sourcebook (OASIS), 219 
Open Access Scholarly Publishers 
Association (OASPA), 69, 171, 
191nl8, 210n9, 218n3, 220 
Open Access Tracking Project 

(OATP), 219 
OpenAire, 173, 218n7 
Open Archives Initiative (OAI), 

56-57, 188n5, 218n7 
Open data, xi, 35, 60, 63, 86, 98, 99, 

OpenDepot, 173, 218n7 
OpenDoar, 219 

Open educational resources (OER) 
and open courseware (OCW), xi, 
52, 99, 136 

Open Journal Systems, 143, 

Open review, 104 
Open science, xi 
Open Society Foundations, xi 
Open-source and free software, xi, 

60, 66-67, 98, 99, 143, 190nl4, 

Optical Society of America, 212nl4 
O'Reilly, Tim, 180n8, 200-201n8 
Oriental Institute, 200-201n8 
Oslo University, 189n9 
Ostrom, Elinor, 178n3 

Palfrey, John, xii 
Parma, Ramesh C, 216nl0 
Patterson, L. Ray, 130-131, 207n5 
Peek, Robin, 182n5, 219 
Peer review, 8, 17-21, 25, 37, 44, 62, 
98, 99-100, 103-104, 139, 142, 
164-166, 170, 173. See also Edi- 
tors; Misunderstandings; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Postprints; Referees; Toll-access 
(or conventional) journals and 
bypassing, 20-21, 58, 99, 100, 

102, 163, 165-166 
costs, 137, 139, 142-143, 145, 

163, 170 
decoupling from distribution, 64 
editors and, 19-20, 25, 37, 44, 64, 

103-104, 139-140, 170 
generally carried out by unpaid 
volunteers, 7, 17-18, 19, 20, 25, 
37, 142, 184nl3 
gold OA and, 59, 62, 72, 84, 100 
green OA and, 59, 63, 64, 72, 102, 
126, 171-174 

open review, 104 

postprints and, 99-104, 173 

preprints and, 52, 98-104 

referees and, 17-21, 25, 37, 44, 98, 
103-104, 139, 142, 170, 173 

reform of, 20, 102-104 

rejection rates and, 40 

repositories and, 51-53, 64, 171 

revenue and, 17, 20-21, 38, 103, 
137, 139-140, 167 

scholarship and, 17 

survival of, 62, 64, 147 
Permission. See also Copyright; Cre- 
ative Commons; Fair use; Libre 
OA; Licenses; Public domain 

barriers as access barriers (see 

blanket permission for green OA, 
54-56, 57, 59, 71, 84, 126, 172, 

contracts and, 129 

gratis and libre OA and, 6, 8, 50, 
53, 60-62, 65-70, 71-75 

green and gold OA and, 53, 57, 65, 
100, 154-155, 172-174 

policies and, 79-83, 90, 93 
Physics, 57, 63-64, 146, 150-153, 

156. See also ArXiv; CERN 
Pitts, Lawrence H., 186n22 
Plagiarism, 23-24 
PLoS ONE, 212nl4 
Policies. See also Academic freedom; 
Copyright; Funding agencies; 
Green OA (OA through reposi- 
tories); Mandates; Unanimous 
faculty votes; Universities; 

funding and, 71, 77-80, 83-89, 
94, 126, 128, 172-173, 192n2 

gold OA and, 77-79, 83-84, 

91-93, 134, 192-193n4 
gratis OA and, 71-72 
green OA and, 59, 77-79, 83-84, 

93, 149, 161 
historical timing and, 71-73, 

libreOAand, 72, 90-91, 93 
mandates and, 54, 58-59, 63, 

78-95, 149-157, 174, 192n2, 

permission and, 79-83, 84, 90, 93 
repositories and, 77, 79-83, 

86-87, 174 
SHERPAand, 171 
universities and, 4, 23, 59, 

71-72, 77-87, 90, 128, 149-150, 

172-173, 192n2 
waivers and, 80-84, 87-94, 155 
Postprints. See also Peer review; 

Preprints; Versions 
gold OA and, 60, 100 
green OA and, 60, 100, 173, 

peer review and, 99-104, 173 
Poynder, Richard, 178n3, 186n20, 

189nl0, 189-190nl2, 200n5, 

Preprints, 114. See also Ingelfinger 

rule; Peer review; Postprints; 

green OAand, 60, 63, 100, 173 
peer review and, 20-21, 52, 

Preservation, 6, 34, 52, 62, 63, 74, 

102, 136, 167 
Prestige, 16, 40, 50, 54-55, 60-61, 

84, 167, 169-170, 171. See also 

Authors; Career-building for 

faculty; Impact; Journals (in 

general); Open-access journals 
and publishers; Toll-access (or 
conventional) journals and 

Prices. See Access; Toll-access (or 
conventional) journals and 

Print, 1, 18, 34, 35, 47, 108-111, 

137, 144, 166, 167. See also 

Books; Digitization 

print-era models, 18, 111, 144 

print-on-demand (POD), 108 

rivalrous, 47-48 

Processing, 5-6, 44, 120-123. See 
also Machines; Search and search 
engines; Text mining 

Promotion and tenure, 13, 60, 86, 
130, 195-196nl2. See also 
Career-building for faculty; 
Prestige; Universities 

Public domain, 21, 69, 99, 111, 125, 
190nl7. See also Copyright; 
Libre OA 

Public Knowledge, xi 

Public Knowledge Project, 143 

Public Library of Science, 142, 

Publishers. See Open-access 

journals and publishers; Societ- 
ies, scholarly; Toll-access (or 
conventional) journals and 

Publishers Association (PA), 

Publishing (in general). See also 
Open-access journals and pub- 
lishers; Toll-access (or conven- 
tional) journals and publishers 
added value, 35, 142-143, 145 
costs, 21-22, 119, 142-144 

Publishing and the Ecology of Eu- 
ropean Research (PEER), 189n9, 

Publishing Research Consortium 
(PRC), 134, 157-158 

PubMed Central, 57, 188n7. See also 

Queensland University of Technol- 
ogy, 193n6 
Queen's University, 192n3 

Rausing, Lisbet, xii 
Readers. See Lay readers; Research- 
Referees. See also Peer review 
fee waivers and, 139, 170 
generally not paid by journals, 
incentives for, 19 
networks to find, 103 
preprints and, 21, 98 
standards and, 104 
value adders, 37 
Registry of Open Access Reposi- 
tories (ROAR), 188n6, 192n2, 
218n6, 219 
Registry of Open Access Reposi- 
tory Material Archiving Policies 
(ROARMAP), 192n2, 193n4, 
Repositories, 49, 52, 67, 111. See 
also ArXiv; Dark deposits; Green 
OA (OA through repositories); 
Open Archives Initiative (OAI); 
PubMed Central; Self-archiving 
contents, variety of, 52, 134-136, 

costs, 51, 53, 59, 62, 134, 136, 

dark deposits and, 52, 81-82 
disciplinary, 57, 173 (see also 

ArXiv; PubMed Central) 
institutional, 57, 80, 86, 134-136, 

interoperable, 56-57 
peer review and, 51-53, 64, 171 
policies and, 77, 79-83, 86-87, 174 
purposes of, 134-135 
unfamiliarity with, 52, 55, 58 
universal repositories, 173 
Research. See also Harm to research 

or researchers; Knowledge; 

Mandates; Policies; Processing; 

grants and, 13-14, 23, 80-84, 88, 

129, 150, 170 
growth of published research, 

41-43, 64 
inquiry and truth-seeking, 10-12, 

13, 14, 112-115, 120-121 
libraries and, 30-32, 35, 40-41, 

141, 146, 156-157, 160 
policies and, 78-89, 93-95 
public interests served by, ix, 14 
as wider category than knowledge, 

Research Councils UK, 155 
Researchers. See also Authors; Harm 

to research or researchers; Lay 

as authors, 2-4, 9-12, 15-17, 25, 

77, 102 
as readers, 15, 25, 40-41, 102, 

unfamiliarity with OA, x, 40-41, 

55, 58, 77 

Research Information Network, 30, 

134, 182n4, 184nl3 
Research Libraries UK, 134, 182n7 
Revenue. See also Funding; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Royalties; Sustainability; Toll- 
access (or conventional) journals 
and publishers 
academic freedom and, 10, 13, 14 
access and, 38, 114-115 
advertising and, 135-137 
authors and, 1, 2-4, 5, 9-10, 
106-111, 116, 130, 132 
books and, 106-112 
consent to OA without loss of, 
9-10, 17-18, 20-21, 44, 106, 
107, 111 
copyright and, 5, 44, 130, 132 (see 

also Copyright) 
distribution and, 129, 142 
hybrid journals and double-dip- 
ping and, 141, 211-212nl3 
limiting access and, 36 
profits and, 10, 13-14, 19, 29, 
32-33, 38, 40, 50, 62, 77, 118, 
142-145, 160, 167 
protection of, 125, 129-130 
Reynolds, Larry, 203nl6 
Rights MEtadata for Open archiving 

database (RoMEO), 188n4, 219 
Rivalrous property. See Nonrival- 

rous property 
Roche, Ellen, 217n2 
Rockefeller Foundations, 197- 

Rowse, Mark, 147 
Royal Library, Sweden, 197-198n20 

Royalties. See also Incentives; 

academic salaries and, 12-14 
audience size and, 15, 20, 130 
books and, 106-108 
copyright reform and, 132 (see 

also Copyright) 
deprivation of, 12, 21-22 
making a living and, 1-2, 12, 21, 

moviemakers and, 12 
musicians and, 12-13 
novelists and, 12-13 
risks to, 21, 108 
royalty-free literature, 9-13, 17, 

21, 106, 130, 132 
royalty-producing literature, 12, 

17, 106, 132 
RSS feeds, 49 

Sahu, D. K., 216nl0 

Sale, Arthur, 188n8 

Sales. See Revenue 

San Jose State University, 192n3 

Scaling (with the growth of pub- 
lished knowledge), 41-43, 59, 
64, 134, 186n20 

Scholarly Publishing and Academic 
Resources Coalition (SPARC), xi 
SPARC Europe Seal of Approval 
program, 69, 191nnl8-20, 220 

Scholars. See Researchers 

Schroeder, Patricia, 152 

Search and search engines, 35, 56, 
57, 70, 82, 108, 120-122. See 
also Machines; Processing; Text 

Select Committee on Science and 
Technology, 203nl6 

Self-archiving, 53, 105, 151, 154- 
155. See also Deposits; Green 
OA (OA through repositories); 

Shao, Jufang, 178n4 

Sheehan, Peter, 133, 207n2 

Shen, Huiyun, 178n4 

SHERPA database, 171, 188n4, 
211nl2, 218n4, 219 

Shieber, Stuart, xii, 30, 87, 182n5, 
196nl4, 209n8 

Shirky, Clay, 121, 205n24 

Simons, Spencer, 208n4 

Skurnik, David, xii 

Social media, 100, 102-103, 104. 
See also Blogs; Wikis 

Societies, scholarly. See also Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Toll-access (or conventional) 
journals and publishers 
society publishers, 33, 40, 50, 

as stakeholders in OA, x, 136, 165 

Software. See Machines; Open- 
source and free software; 
Processing; Search and search 
engines; Text mining 

Sohn, Gigi, xii 

Southampton University, 193n6, 

Spina Bifida Association of America, 

Sponsoring Consortium for Open 
Access Publishing in Particle 
Physics (SCOAP3), 146-147, 
189nll, 214n20. See also CERN 

Springer, 160, 200-201n8 

Stanford University School of Edu- 
cation, 194n7 

Steele, Colin, 207n2 

Stone, Graham, 196nl6 

Strathmore University, 194n7 

Study of Open Access Publishing 
(SOAP), 209n7, 211nl2 

Suber, Peter, 177nnl-2, 178n3, 

178n5, 180nnl0-ll, 180-181nl, 
184nll, 184nl4, 186nnl9- 
20, 186-187n23, 187nl, 
189-190nnl0-12, 190nl5, 
191nl9, 192nl, 193n4, 195n9, 
195-196nnll-13, 197nnl7-18, 
199nl, 199n3, 200n5, 202nnll- 
12, 202-203nnl4-15, 205nn21- 
23, 206nl, 206n3, 207nl, 209n5, 
210nl0, 211-212nnl3-14, 
214n20, 214nl, 217nl, 

Subsidies, 38-39, 136-137, 144. See 
also Funding; Open-access jour- 
nals and publishers; Toll-access 
(or conventional) journals and 

SURFShare, 189n9 

Sustainability, 29, 30, 38, 43, 62, 64, 
142, 145, 158, 158-159, 160. 
See also Open-access journals 
and publishers; Revenue; Toll- 
access (or conventional) journals 
and publishers 

Swan, Alma, 89, 178n6, 192n4, 
196nl6, 207n2, 215n2, 219 

Swedish Research Council, 195n9 

Swedish University of Agricultural 
Sciences, 192n3 

Tagler, John, 211nl2 
Terminology, 6, 22, 53, 66, 70, 
86-90, 138 

"author fees" and "author pays," 

"BBB" definition of OA, 7 
"conventional" journals and pub- 
lishers, 6 
"free," 67 
"gold OA," 6, 53 
"gratis OA," 6, 65-67 
"green OA," 6, 53 
"libre OA," 6, 65-67 
"mandates," 78, 86-90, 196nl3, 

"open," 67 

"open access," 9, 27, 66 
"preprint" and "post/print," 

"self-archiving," 53 
"toll access," 6 

Text mining, 5, 74, 122. See also 
Machines; Processing; Search 
and search engines 
Theses and dissertations, 16, 98-99, 
104-106, 195nl2, 199n4. See 
also Green OA (OA through 
repositories); Repositories; 
author rights and, 105 
dark deposits and, 52 
green OAand, 60, 63, 174 
invisibility of, 104-106 
mandates and, 86 
quality, 104-106 
repositories and, 52, 136, 174 
self-archiving and, 105 
Thomson Scientific, 50, 187n2 
Toll-access (or conventional) jour- 
nals and publishers, 6, 14, 18, 21, 
24, 29, 32, 35, 37-38, 40, 50-54, 
55, 62-63, 125, 129, 143-144, 

151-152, 161, 169. See also 
Boycotts; Journals (in general); 
Libraries; Monopolies and anti- 
competitive practices; Open- 
access journals and publishers; 
Peer review; Prestige; Publishing 
(in general); Societies, scholarly; 

access and, 34, 37-38, 43, 
119-122, 125 

access barriers and, 14, 38, 48, 93 

accommodate OA policies, 54, 
55-56, 84, 91, 93, 94, 126, 
128, 172-173, 188n4, 195nl0, 

adaptation to growth of OA, 18, 
24, 35-37, 94, 95, 104, 140, 
145-146, 147 

author rights and, 5, 9, 23, 53, 
105, 108, 110 

author-side fees and, 9-10, 

big deals and bundling, 32-33, 
145, 182-183n7, 183n9 

books, 108, 110 

boycotts and, 24-25 

business models, 24, 37-43, 48, 
110, 126, 159-160 

cancellations, 30, 32, 62-63, 64, 
65, 147, 151, 152, 154-155, 
157-158, 159-160, 186nl9, 

confidentiality or nondisclosure 
clauses, 33, 34 

content protection measures and, 
40, 119, 143 

contracts and, 23, 33, 68, 83-88, 
129, 172 

Toll-access (cont.) 
conversion to OA, 15, 18, 19, 59, 

62-63, 94, 104, 140, 144-147, 

159-160, 213nl8 
copyright and, 5, 9, 34, 37, 39, 

58-60, 125-132, 156 
costs, 119, 142-144 
deposit mandates and, 79-81, 87 
disintermediation of, 19, 44 
downloads, 152-154 
experiments with OA, 18, 24, 100, 

libraries and, 32, 34, 35, 40, 121, 

147, 160 
licensing agreements, 34-35 
lobbying, 18, 25, 43, 72, 90, 116, 

151-152, 156, 159 
loophole mandates and, 79, 81-82 
negotiation with, by authors, 60, 

80, 105, 172-173 
negotiation with, by libraries, 

34-35, 143, 147 
nonprofit, 33, 40, 50 (see also 

Societies, scholarly) 
opposition to OA, x, 18, 58, 71-72, 

105, 111 
peer review and, 30, 59, 100, 117, 

140, 144, 147, 156, 159 
permission and, 53-54, 57, 90, 126 
policies and, 79-84, 87-95 
power to protect themselves from 

OA policies, 126-128, 149-150 
prices and price increases, 25, 

29-33, 39, 40, 41-42, 64, 158- 

159, 181n2, 182n5, 182-183n7, 

184-185nl5, 186nl9, 186n21 
profits, 29, 32, 40, 50, 143, 145, 

160-161, 183n8 
public subsidies and, 38-39 

quality, 19, 32, 33, 39, 40-41, 
49-50, 54, 56, 60, 61, 104, 
117-118, 139, 184-185nl5 

rejection rates and, 40, 94 

revenue and, 18-19, 32, 37-38, 
40, 133, 141-147, 159 

rights-retention mandates and, 

risks and perceived risks from 
OA, 18, 24-25, 64-65, 149-161, 

submissions, 15, 145, 151, 159 

subscriptions and, 16-19, 
29-35, 39-44, 59, 119, 140-147, 

sustainability, 29, 43, 64, 142, 145, 

usage, 32, 39 

use of unpaid volunteers, 2-4, 
9-10, 12, 17-18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 
37, 38, 44, 64, 106-107, 111, 
116, 130, 132, 142, 184nl3 

variety of positions on OA (not 
monolithic), 18 

voluntary permission for green 
OA, 18, 54-56, 57, 59-60, 71, 
84, 126, 154-155, 188n4 
Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Community College and Career 
Training (TAACCCT), 197- 
Trinity University, 194n7 

UK Department of Health, 195n9 
UK Medical Research Council, 195n9 
UK PubMed Central (UKPMC), 

Unanimous faculty votes, 72, 82, 

89-90, 93, 191nl9, 194n7, 

197nl7, 217n3. See also Man- 
dates; Policies; Universities 
Universal access, 26-27 
Universities. See also Libraries; 
Mandates; Policies; Promotion 
and tenure; Repositories; Theses 
and dissertations; Unanimous 
faculty votes 
libraries and, 32, 42, 111, 147, 174 
mandates, 79-90, 96, 149 (see also 

paying publication fees, 136, 139, 
145, 147, 170, 210-211nll, 
policies, 4, 23, 59, 71-72, 77-87, 
90, 94, 128, 129, 149-150, 
172-173 (see also Policies) 
public funding for public purpose 

of, 14, 38-39 
salaries and, 12, 14, 17 
as stakeholders in OA, x, 77-78 
upstream from publishers, 129 
usefulness or utility of research, ix, 
5, 6, 40, 75, 102, 115, 121-123 
University College London, 193n5 
University of Athabasca, 192n3 
University of Bielefeld, 192n3 
University of Calgary, 210nll 
University of California, 181n2, 

University of Chicago, 200-201n8 
University of Ghent, 193n5 
University of Hawaii-Manoa, 194n7 
University of Hong Kong, 194n6 
University of Kansas, 194n7 
University of Liege, 194n6, 

University of Maine, xi 
University of Memphis, 202nl3 

University of Minho, 193n6 
University of Northern Colorado 

Libraries, 194n6 
University of Oregon, 192n3, 194n7 
University of Oregon Department 
of Romance Languages, 194n7, 
University of Oregon Library Fac- 
ulty, 194n7 
University of Pretoria, 194n6 
University of Puerto Rico Law 

School, 194n7 
University of Salford, 194n6 
University of Sassari, 192n3, 

University of Strathclyde, 193n5 
University of Tampere, 192n3 
University of Utrecht, 192n3 
University of Virginia, 192n3 
University of Washington, 192n3 
University of Westminster, 193n5 
University of Zurich, 193n5 
U.S. Congress, 72, 152, 187n24 
U.S. Department of Education, 

U.S. Department of Health and Hu- 
man Services, 197-198n20 
U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, 197-198n20 
U.S. Department of Labor, 

U.S. Department of State, 197- 

U.S. Institute of Medicine, 

Varmus, Harold, 187n24 
Velterop, Jan, 41, 145, 185nl8, 
196nl3, 213nl7 

Versions, 62, 74, 100-102, 155-156, 
174, 199n2. See also Postprints; 
Vezina, Kumiko, 196nl6 
V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National 
University, 193n5 

Wagner, Ben, 178n6 

Waivers, 23. See also Copyright; 
Mandates; Open-access journals 
and publishers; Policies 
no waiver options in some funder 
mandates, 83-84, 87, 150, 155, 
waiving provisions of OA policies 
or mandates, 23, 80-84, 87-94, 
150, 155 
waiving publication fees at fee- 
based OA journals, 136-137, 
139, 170, 210nl0 
waiving rights under copyright 
lawforlibreOA,68, 165 

Wake Forest University Library 
Faculty, 194n7 

Washington, H. A., 187n24 

Washington State Board for Com- 
munity and Technical Colleges 
(SBCTC), 197-198n20 

Washington State University, 33 

Weitzman, Jonathan B., 216nl0 

Wellcome Trust, xi, 80, 83, 85, 87, 
134, 150, 195n9, 197-198n20. 
See also Funding; Funding agen- 
cies; Mandates 

Wikipedia, 114, 164 

Wikis, 49, 100, 114, 164, 190nl4 

Wiley, David, 200-201n8 

Wiley Europe, 203nl6 

Willinsky, John, 212-213nnl5-16 
Wills, Alma, 209n8 
Wright, Robert, 208n4 

Yahoo, 56. See also Search and 

search engines 
Yale University, 30, 205n23 
Yale Law School Information 

Society Project, xi 
York University, 192n3